solange

The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.” The fact is that this statement is one of the strangest---and least objective---statements there can be. BTW, I have read many excellent discussions by Peikoff about the irrationality of the Christian and Islamic religions. I've missed the discussions about the irrationality of, specifically, Judism. Can someone tell me where I can find those discussions in his writings?

I think a statement can be both arbitrary and false. arbitrary /aarbitrri, -tri/ • adjective 1 based on random choice or personal whim. It simply means a statement selected through random choice. For instance, if someone asks me which hand has the jelly bean in it and I say "I don't know. Okay, the right one" and it turns out it was the left hand, the statement is false but could be said to be an arbitrary statement because it was selected arbitrarily.

If you have some other definition to suggest, then it would have been useful if you provided it, and in much clearer terms than above, at the beginning of the thread. I am not a lexicographer. From Wiki: "Modern deists hold a wide range of views on the nature of God and on whether God intervenes in the world. Some Deists see design in nature and through this design they also see purpose in the universe and in their lives (Prime Designer)". This would appear to apply to Einstein [Magnificent Obsession, as it were] and many "non-religious" Freemasons (Grand Architect). Continuing from Wiki: "The overall view of Deism is to use Reason as the foundation and Experience and Nature as the basis of belief. Under the umbrella of Modern Deism, one can find many different sub-categories. Here are some examples: Monodeism, Pandeism, Process Deism, Panendeism, Polydeism, Christian Deism, Scientific Deism, Humanistic Deism and many more. No religions exist within the category of Deism as of yet. Scientific Deism: Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1]. Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them." Supposing you have a definition that does not contain such contradictions and can't be dismissed on that basis. I would submit that what you describe couldn't properly be described as the Christian God, but rather would be more akin to the Greek gods, such as Zeus. Who said anything about the Christian God? I thought Peikoff was talking about agnostics of all faiths. That kind of entity has already been addressed, as it is essentially the same kind of claim as the space gremlins. I didn't address it yet. This was my first comment on it. I am addressing the issue of whether Peikoff was wrong to call agnositics cowards. That kind of claim is arbitrary I believe I said exactly that: agnostics generally view claims of God as arbitrary and therefore dismiss them out of hand. I further said certain deists do not maintain beliefs which contradict known scientific prinicples and were they to be confronted with evidence that any of their beliefs contradicted science, they'd reject them. This does not appear to me to be an irrational position. and you should brush up on what Dr. Peikoff said about the epistemological status of the arbitrary. If you disagree with what he said, you should post up your argument against that. Should? I am not following you. As I am new here and don't know the lay of the land yet, may I ask you if your name of "Inspector" indicates you are an official here and your position is to monitor what others write? If so, could you please describe how that works so I can abide by the conditions of this Forum? If not, and if I am not violating any of the rules of this Forum by thinking independently, then I think I will be the judge of what I should or should not brush up on or post. The single thing I like best about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy is its passionate anti-authoritarianism.

Rather, claims of God must be dismissed as arbitrary unless and until evidence is brought forward. This is precisely the agnostic position as I understand it. What other agnostic position could there be? If an agnostic didn't dismiss claims of God as arbitrary it would mean that he thought there is at least some evidence to indicate there may be a God. If you told him Elvis Presley created the world he would reject that out of hand. That he doesn't reject the proposition that there is some type of a God out of hand yet doesn't see any evidence that proves there is a God means he thinks the claim is arbitrary and therefore dismissible unless new evidence is brought forward to prove the existence of a God. I hardly would call an agnostic cowardly or mentally lazy. I'd call him wise to use his time judiciously and not waste it pondering about something which has no practical effect on his life. How much time did Howard Roark spend debating proofs of whether or not there was a God? Main Entry: ar·bi·trary 3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard>

Strange that a person who lives his life and chooses his actions in relationship to others based on mysticism rather than reason should be thought of as a more heroic (less cowardly) human being than one who passes on making a judgment about something which he doesn't feel he has enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. I'm going to venture a guess that all of the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been and continue to be killed in the name of religion would much rather have done business with that latter.

Hello Brandon. I thought about your statements and questions and here are my responses. Any rational list of the possible ways the world began would not include god. So why assume that until you have omniscient knowledge of the universe you have to suspend judgement about god? I think the basis of scientific inquiry on the part of many of the most brilliant inventors and scientists is to exclude nothing from the range of possibilities when looking for a solution. So the "rational list of the possible ways the world began" should exclude little, in my opinion, until someone comes up with a proof. What you may think is a rational list may not coincide with what another thinks is a rational list, and although some lists may appear and in fact be totally irrational, which of the better seeming choices is the most rational cannot be known until a proof is submitted as to the actual way the world began. I think it is rational to think such proof will never be submitted although I don't entirely exclude that possibility. Most great inventors went "outside" the box which is why they were the ones who came up with the solutions. Whereas someone who thought that thunder was caused because the gods were angry could be refuted with the evidence which proves otherwise, any theory about how the world began cannot be refuted with similar hard, cold evidence. I do not assume that I will ever have omniscient knowledge of the universe. I also don't assume anyone else will have ominiscient knowledge of the universe. I wouldn't describe it as "suspending judgment about god" because it appears none of us are ever going to have omniscient knowledge of the universe so none or us are going to ever have to make a final judgment on the origin of the world in order to live a rational life. <i>I am not aware of anyone who has proved or disproved difinitivly that there is a convention of gremlins on the far side of the moon studying Hegel's writing. What is your stand on the gremlin convention?</i> I'm not aware of any gremlin proof either. I'd bet most of my money, but not my life, that there are no gremlins on any side of the moon. Judging from some recent revelations about the things of which large numbers of US citizens are capable (as a "for instance") I wouldn't drop dead from shock to hear gremlins have been found to be living on the far side of the moon. So my stand on the gremlin convention is that there certainly is no reason to think moonie gremlins exist and there certainly is no reason to think some sort of non-interventionist god exists (which is the type of god many think may exist if one does) but stranger things have probably happened than either of those possibilities. As a matter of fact I think know of some. <i> Or do you suspend judgment of the issue because you don't know the history of the universe yet?</i> No, I choose not to spend time making a judgment because I know that neither I nor nobody will ever know the entire history of the universe. <i>I wasn't around when the world began either, but that doesn't mean I need to accept as plausible the idea that a god created it. That is bazaar.</i> I don't think anyone is asking you to accept anything as plausible. Each person decides for himself when and if he wants to make a judgment about any particular thing. I think we can both agree that there were many things about which Einstein never made judgments and would have no doubt resisted even if pressed to do so. I don't think he probably would have been all that amused if someone said he was a coward because he failed to make those judgments, although perhaps, taking into account that famous picture of him sticking out his tonuge, he may have been amused. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Einstein's thoughts about religion because I never gave them enough thought to decide but I do find certain statements of his interesting: It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people. It's a thought for another day, maybe never, but I wouldn't be suprised if the type of concept about which Einstein is talking above had a lot of bearing on the psychological reasons Ayn Rand was depressed {she who was not given to depression] after the publication of her massive and monumental effort Atlas Shrugged. Much would depend on what exactly Einstein meant by "cosmic religious feeling" which if such a discussion ever took place I would examine in relation to the concept of "audience" in Ayn Rand's case. <i>And what exactly have you studied that leaves you unconvinced of evolution? The bible? </i> Lol, no, I never studied the bible or any other religious text as I have always thought since I can remember all were fictional works written by various human beings and not reflective of "the word of god." As the bible contains many acts of completely depraved violence it's not a work I would enjoy reading in entirety, much less studying. There are parts of the bible which contain (rational and benevolent) ideas with which I agree and what's more I can see how those particular ideas would be inspiring to many people. If one concedes that the thesis of the Golden Rule underlies a great many (but obviously not all) religious precepts, then I think one would have to agree that those particular religious precepts and Ayn Rand's ethical philosophy were not in contradiction. To be precise, I didn't speak to the concept of "evolution". I said that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is something which I have to reject based on the evidence I have at this time. Why? Do you see or are you aware of any Cro Magnon men still around? However, are you aware of any apes still around? I'll leave it at that. <i>Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics</i> By citing this you appear to be more of a fan of the initiation of violence than I am. I prefer a more laissez faire approach to life and do not go around suggesting it would be a good thing if anyone is burned or whipped---even in jest---even to make a point. I can think of other more benevolent suggestions to get a person to come to see and acknowledge that A=A. I think someone in this thread may be violating or forgetting or ignoring (i.e. denying) this very valuable axiom. Who's that? And should council be convened to vote on whether they agree with you that such a crime has taken place? Otherwise why do you bring it up in that way? Your smiley faces were not smiling but indicated displeasure and alarm. If a guilty verdict is found should the person be burned or whipped or merely instructed not to post anymore? Finally, my main point is that although you define god in certain ways, there are many different definitions of god as I am sure you are aware. Certain Deist concepts of god would not seem to involve the rational contradictions that you believe other definitions a priori suggest.

Sorry about the prior posting error. Nick, I think you make your case well and it seems to me to be the only logical position to have on this matter. My interpretation of Ayn Rand's body of comments on this subject including her oral statements made in interviews is that your position is one which Ayn Rand would not find unsympathetic. I am at a loss why individuals with self-esteem who are admirers of Ayn Rand would not object more forcefully to distasteful statements like Leonard Peikoff's maintaining that agnostics are cowards. It's easy to call people names. It's a little harder to present logical arguments on complex topics which in my opinion Leonard Peikoff certainly does not do in his writing about agnosticism. David ends his post with "I'm curious why you do not know that god is nonexistent." I assume this last sentence is intended seriously and not meant to be amusing? If so, then I would respond to David that I'm curioius why you know that god is nonexistent. My own position as an agnostic who doesn't think this is even a topic which requires much attention since any attention paid is likely to be time wasted is that since I have seen no evidence that god exists nor do I find Darwin's Theory of Evolution compelling in its entirety, I am not aware that anyone has proved or disproved "god's" existence definitively. As I wasn't around when the world began I am not aware of what transpired and it doesn't appear anyone else is either. It is perfectly consistent with rejecting mysticism and embracing reason to acknowledge ignorance as to how the world began.