Devil's Advocate

Your position is clear to me. You are certain that reverence is only valid when the source of reverence is valid, and you're pretty sure Ayn Rand's statements support your position. Fear not, I'm not trying to poison you with a compromise of your position. I have asked if the concept of God is a necessary invention? You believe it isn't. I have asked if reverence enhances our well being? You believe well being, as an end, isn't justified by irrational means. I have asked if there is a positive reason for reverence? You believe there is, but only if it is rational. Is this a fair summary of your position?

Presuming 'it' to be the natural universe, I'm not identifying the universe as a summoner of reverence; if that's what you meant. I'm saying that natural beings feel reverence for a natural universe; at least most of them do.

Is it correct to say that reason is derived from reality, purpose from reason, meaning from purpose and reverence from meaning? e.g. Reality > Reason > Purpose > Meaning > Reverence If so (and I may have misunderstood your prior comments), reverence for nature flows (via consciousness) from the primary of reality, i.e. nature, does it not? Is consciousness natural?

"According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: "Today I decided to be an atheist." Branden then reports her as later explaining, "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong." [branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand's "second reason" is that "no proof of the existence of God exists." http://solohq.org/Ar...t_1_of_4).shtml Is this sufficient to satisfy the needs of those for whom the natural universe evokes a sense of reverence?

I'm most curious about this view, and the degree to which it influences Objectivism in general. In an interview with Phil Donahue, Phil questioning Ayn Rand about the universe evoking reverence, her response was very similar to yours; she preferred city skylines to the cold and distant stars. I can only respectfully suggest that according to statistical evidence (I've provided, but readily available by alternate sources), this represents the minority view of individuals globally, for which the natural universe does evoke a sense of reverence. I share a more Jeffersonian view... “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition … it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is … a fabricator of all things.” ~ Jefferson, in a letter to Adams ... and... “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” ~ Jefferson Taken together, these two statements (now two centuries past), along with contemporary polling of belief vs non-belief, imply that the apparent need for reverence hasn't been diminished by scientific advances or attempts by governments to suppress it. Let me ask you this... Suppose God(s) was successfully removed as a concept. Do you believe the concept of man as a heroic being would satisfy the majority of those for whom the natural universe does evoke a sense of reverence?

Since you've become red and bold font with me, I'll try to respond to this first. The purpose to be achieved is well being. Going back to your earlier question, "... A was applied to B, and the result was God... What is B", 'A' (wisdom) was applied to 'B' (curiosity) and the result was (a concept of) God. In terms of this tread, "A Reason for Reverence", I suggest the reason is the pursuit of happiness; not a particular object of the pursuit, e.g. a noble, heroic or godlike being. I generally agree with your position that irrational things are not beneficial. I believe we are mostly at odds over your conclusion that irrational things imply irrational pursuits; I don't believe that's necessarily so. The pursuit of happiness is rational, and can be a rational value in itself. The studies I've pointed to indicate that reverence for something positive, e.g. a beneficent divinity or a heroic being, enhance health, whereas a reverence for something negative, e.g. a vengeful divinity or a craven being, impede health. Put more simply, a positive outlook is healthier than a negative one. Your comments about the fallacy being used to argue for socialized healthcare, etc, is essentially that the ends don't justify the means. In terms of restrictions on individual freedom, you are preaching to the choir and I agree. My argument isn't that individuals ought to revere something rational or irrational; it's that reverence for something positive (which is only validated by the individual pursuing it) is part of being human.

The Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Columbia University, University of Denver, University of Pittsburgh, University of Miami, US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. If these institutions for scientific research lack the credentials necessary for an Objectivist like yourself to take seriously, then dismiss them. I'm not asserting "that irrationality is good for your health"; I'm suggesting that human beings have an apparent need for reverence, based on statistical evidence and medical research.

Then we may agree in principle. I think reverence precedes meaning, i.e. something captures our attention (takes our breath way), and it naturally follows that we try to derive some meaning from it. If we weren't reverent by nature, then it's likely we wouldn't reflect on sunsets, rainbows or starry nights; at least I'm not aware of other members of the animal kingdom pausing from their daily routines to study such events. I need purpose to go to work; I need reverence to make work fulfilling. Religions offer God(s) like governments offer security; they profit from responding to needs they cannot satisfy.

I'm fairly sure God, defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and Creator of the universe, isn't a necessary requirement. Reverence can be divided as religious and secular, and further divided between objects of reverence. Again, my interest is in reverence as a human need; not the validity of a particular object of reverence.

That's a good point, and I agree. I also agree that reverence for the wrong ideas has been the source of much pain and suffering in the world. My primary interest here is whether or not reverence, per se, is essential to human nature, and accounts for the persistence of faith in spite of reason or political efforts to suppress it.

Proof of God's existence is a non-starter, however if you consider the results of medical research, e.g. that the faithful have a health advantage over those who have a negative view of faith, then the issue of God's existence becomes less important than the apparent benefit of reverence to well being. "It’s not always clear where the line of objectivity is in this research, and because of this the debates about the gritty theoretical details will doubtless continue, sometimes heatedly, far into the future. Still, the increasing sophistication of research in the field of religion and health points to a growing awareness among scientists and physicians that the relationship between spiritual life and practices and well-being is real, has impacts on people’s lives, and demands to be better understood." http://www.patheos.c...alth-–-part-ii/ Perhaps God's a placebo for well being; a false identity, but having a real effect on health nonetheless. The links I've provided are intended to show evidence that reverence for something godlike is inevitable and necessary to well being; the proof is the persistence of faith in an age of reason.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ Voltaire Objectivism asserts that traditional faith in God* is irrational because God contradicts of the Law of Identity; a slam dunk for reason... ... and yet credible statistics** show that a majority of individuals worldwide remain faithful to an "illogical" God. In the USA (One Nation Under You-Know-Who), a nation dedicated to maintaining the greatest freedom of belief (or non-belief), less than 10% of the population identify themselves as "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God". Was Voltaire correct? I'm posting this topic as an effort to understand the persistance of faith in spite of reason; NOT TO ARGUE FOR GOD, but to account for the apparent need of an otherwise rational population to revere something... noble? heroic?? divine??? I propose that humans have a need for reverence that accounts for faith; that "Man as a Heroic Being" and "Nature's God" respond to this need; and that persuading a faithful population to act rationally, requires understanding why reverence is important to them. Consider the following: "The term self-esteem comes from a Greek word meaning 'reverence for self.'" http://ehlt.flinders...te/whatisse.htm "Nature, science, literature, philosophy, great philosophers, leaders, artists, art, music, wisdom, and beauty may each act as the stimulus and focus of reverence." http://en.wikipedia....rence_(emotion) "Secular reverence exerts a protective impact on physical health." http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21442245 "While occasionally religion or – less often – spirituality are linked with negative outcomes, the preponderance of research instead suggests a generally positive effect." http://www.patheos.c...alth-–-part-ii/ I'm not here to praise God, or to defend those who promote God. I'm here to explore the persistence of reverence for something godlike, and whether that's entirely a bad thing. If you'd like to participate, I look forward to an honest discussion that goes beyond dismissing the faithful as irrational mystics. Is the concept of God a necessary invention? Does reverence enhance our well being?? Is there a positive reason for reverence??? "The highest thing in a man is not his god. It's that in him which knows the reverence due a god." ~ Ayn Rand, We The Living -- * defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and Creator of the universe. ** http://freethoughtka...e-in-the-world/

Thanks for your feedback. I'll spend some time over the weekend trying to organize a better presentation of this idea for a new topic to post early next week.

Your initial question, as posted, has some interesting implications. While I greatly appreciate Objectivism, and am very interested in the philosophy, I'm not offering responses from the perspective of an Objectivist. I'll rely on Nicky & Eiuol, et al, to provide a more credible perspective here. Perhaps your follow up questions will come into play...

Perhaps, but I don't think it can be said we know that... "... a man sires a child, but decides early in the child's life that he doesn't want to be a parent and walks out on the child and mother..." ~ partially reposted The man isn't referred to as a husband, so I deduce that the pregnancy is likely to have been unplanned, as opposed to resulting from a more formal arrangement of marriage to produce children. In this context, the child's mother may have decided to bear and deliver the child without any consent from her partner, altering a relationship based on sex into a relationship based on parental obligation. It's likely it took him a while to choose not to stay, given the circumstances and the expectation that remaining would be "the right thing to do". So he adopts a wait and see attitude and gradually becomes less and less happy with a situation he neither consented to undertake, nor cares to continue in... The sticky part for me is, 'abandonment' implies cutting your losses and running. We suspect he chose to leave without offering any continuing support, but would an Objectivist in this situation (escaping from a duty imposed on him) be ethically required to provide support, or ask permission to leave?

"A child you agreed to have" wasn't part of the original statement. How do you know the child wasn't delivered against your wishes as the result of an unplanned pregnancy? Rationality, productivity, pride, independence, justice, integrity, and honesty.

If one can justify abandonment as an act of rational self-interest, then it wouldn't be ethically wrong according to Objectivism, as I understand it... For example, having sex doesn't demonstrate a commitment to become a parent, and if the child is the result of an unplanned pregnancy, then it would depend on whatever agreements the father had made with the mother for support; I notice you didn't refer to the man as "her husband". Your use of the phrase, "walks out", suggests abandonment, i.e. without consideration of existing obligations made to the mother and child. That being the case, it's more likely he's done something morally wrong. I'm curious to see how Objectivists will respond to this one....

Apparently you can... "I underwent a lengthy and involved – and quite fascinating – initiation ritual. It was all explained very clearly and it made a lot of sense to me. It’s not that the rituals are 'quasi-religious' – it’s more that they’re symbolic. And the symbols are good!" ~ PRODOS http://prodos.thinke...im-a-freemason/

LOL Nicky, Thank you for a well timed demonstration of my point.

Spiral Architect, et al... What I'm looking for is a more plausible explanation for the mass appeal/need for religion/sprirtuality/etc. Objectivism does a fine job of revealing the contradictions and harmful aspects of religion, but sidesteps the cause of the addiction. By focusing on the illogic of a particular definition of God, and labelling all people of faith irrational (stupid), something more fundamental (and I suspect necessary) to the nature of humans is being misdiagnosed. It's like a doctor perscribing, "Just say no", to addicts, and then calling them an idiots for going through withdrawal. This is perhaps a digression from this topic, but I think there's a linkage worth exploring between the Law of Identity and the reason for God; if not here, then perhaps as another topic? Something along the lines of, "What is the identity of object of our natural desire to be reverent?" I suspect it's something fundamental and necessary to the nature of our identity as a sentient/sapient species, and I suspect it plays a positive role in promoting our evolution; a survival mechanism, or an intellectual immune system? Any thoughts you might have on this will be appreciated, however if this line of inquiry is too irrational for an Objectivist to respond to, I'll respectfully withdraw to the sidelines.

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." ~ Ayn Rand I would only respectfully add that dissent doesn't imply an irrational (or necessarily mistaken) position. As I have stated, I suspect the motivation power that underlies curiosity to be an aspect of being sapient. However poorly I've articulated this, I haven't presented it as an affront to reason. In my experience a clumbsy argument is simply that; not an attempt to get something over someone. As I said, I appreciated your comments. If I've worn out your patience, I'm content to let it go at that.

I appreciate this exercise in patience on your part. Let me see if I can better articulate my meaning... Your initial question asked how sapience is used to produce a concept of God. The process begins with some curiosity about the nature of the universe. For example, an individual detects some apparent design in nature and wonders what caused it to occur. I don't believe cats would care, but problem solvers would, which is what I associate with sapience; specifically bringing knowledge to bear on resolving a question of interest. Your follow up question appeared repetitive to me; "And what was said knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight applied to?" The process which begins with curiosity, is resolved by finding a plausible solution to the question. Following the example, one has some experience in making patterns, and design suggests a designer, so one considers the likelihood of a designer of nature. Again, I don't thinks cats (or atheists) would care, but "enquiring minds want to know", so I consider the root cause of the exercise to be an attribute of sapience. Perhaps you can suggest a more likely source of this kind of curiosity?

An individual need only justify their belief to themselves; there's no onus on others to disprove it. The only standard of merit is the successful integration of belief into life. If a deist or an atheist can survive equally well without placing any burden on each other, then both systems of belief have been justified. Everyone benefits from premise checking, so it follows that none benefit from dismissing dissent as mere ignorance or denial. Ignorance is the expectation that belief is only validated by conformity. When a philosophical discussion devolves into a trial of motivations, it's time for a recess. Thanks for your comments. I've satisfied my curiosity on this topic.

Working with your formula, "that A was applied to B, and the result was God (or not God)", the standard used is curiosity. Knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight, is applied to curiosity about a greater purpose to life, and the result is a concept of God, or that there is no greater purpose. Only humans appear to be curious about a greater purpose to life, therefore I believe that opinions about God result from being sapient, i.e. our identity as homo sapiens (wise man). Whether or not those opinions are wise depends on how they are acted on, but the generation of opinions about God appears to me to be the result of sapience.

I guess I'm not getting what you're after... Do you mean which standard am I personally using, e.g. objective or subjective??