WorthyLoverOfExistence

It'll be interesting to see how PBS covers the topic Wednesday on their Special: The Question of God

When you're not there, some may take it upon themselves to correct these errors, refuse to make the sacrifice, and lead their religions in better directions.

When I've searched the web for discussion about belief being volitional, I've come up with a pretty evenly divided set of arguments. To me, this indicates a lack of clear definition. It seems that a discussion of belief could be held in the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" area. Religionists tend to favor your point - that belief is arbitrary and volitional; atheists tend to favor the view that belief is not arbitrary - that what one believes is a result of experience and rational reflection. One can choose not to reflect - to keep experience unanalyzed and unintegrated, so in this sense beliefs are volitional, but only indirectly. Once one has integrated the evidence, what one believes is no longer volitional. This begs the question: What does it mean to believe ?

Do you mean metaphysical status ? On the topic at hand...it seems like you (tommyedison) must have better things to do with your friends. Why don't you just wait until it comes up in a context where it makes a difference - like where they're using it as an argument to try to convince you to do or not do something against your judgment - and then talk about it ? I think a few examples of your being unfettered by irrational beliefs (and exercising your free will, btw) will be a lot more convincing than any philosophical argument.

I'd pick Newton. Since I first heard this quote: ...and I thought of the radical and fundamental truths he did discover, I've wondered, what "ocean" of undiscovered truth could he be talking about ?

Sometimes people feel so insignificant and so powerless, that they have to attack big targets to give themselves a sense of pseudo-self esteem. The bigger the targets the better. I can't believe they think it could really work - it must be just a kind of "fidgity" thing they do to help evade the anxiety they feel about their inner emptiness, but I psychologize... Thanks for the WTC URL.

You might try the article The Divine Right of Stagnation in The Virtue of Selfishness. Here's an excerpt:

It's promising that you were aware of a need to respond, and it's not a disaster that you didn't know how. If you can come up with a good response now, you'll be that much further along the next time the subject comes up again in a different form, which I expect it will. At least you'll be able to say "I disagree", and be ready to reply if he asks why. Attacking altruism and it's underlying anti-rational foundations is a huge undertaking and not something you can expect to completely accomplish in every context. It's much better to have this happen in your class than on your job. I recently attended a presentation by the CEO and other department heads of the company I work for. One of the things they discussed was the value of our company's reputation for delivering high quality products and providing expert service. Thinking about this, I started to see a couple ways that Objectivism could be applied to business ethics. Just as an individual's reputation is fundamentally an expression of his character, so with a company. An individual can develop a good reputation by actually being good - by actually developing good character - or by acquiring skill in deluding others about his goodness. In the long run, this second type can continue his course only so long as he surrounds himself by deludable people - like Galt puts it, he becomes "a dependent on the stupidity of others, or [...] a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling". In the world of business, a foolish (unprofitable) company that surrounds itself by other foolish companies will go out of existence rather quickly (ignoring the effects of government intervention). There's also a parallel to (or special case of ?) moral judgment. A company needs to judge the character of it's partners, suppliers, and competitors. It's disastrous to make long-term contractual obligations on the basis of illusory reputations. All of this kind of analysis depends on the idea that there actually is such a thing as "the good" and a way to know it; that it's not "all perception" - Objectivist ethics, with it's foundations in metaphysics and epistemology.

I think this is possible, but only indirectly. Her being a woman magnified the effort required to "lead the movement". Had she been a man, she would not have been psychologically tortured in the role of leader the way she must have been as a woman (see her article in the December 1968 issue of The Objectivist subtitled About Woman President). Had the movement had a different leader, it might have been more successful at spreading more sooner and thus have been more "wide-spread". No one, however, can force anyone to choose Objectivism, and I can't imagine a more persuasive advocate than Rand. There may have been a larger number of people who had the choice earlier in history, but I don't think it would have made much difference in how widespread it is today. I think those who reject her ideas do so because of the ideas, not their originator. But things are what they are, and we can't rewrite history. (On this note - imagine the pain of her believing that she'd found such a leader - a man with leadership potential who truly accepted and understood Objectivism, hoping to be freed from the role, and then discovering that he was a fake.)

[This question was posted in Basic Questions->Has Anyone Read Jaynes ? ] In the first place, any kind of tradition, religious or otherwise, is something that can not be built by fiat in a short time. I don't have a full explanation for it, but it seems obvious to me that the one crucial ingredient in the formation of a tradition is time - generations of observation, and the more the better. So however much or little anyone values religious traditions, the fact that they are thus limited in number gives them a certain value. This value was created by past generations, and it's current "owners" can no more claim exclusive rights to it than anyone can claim rights to the exclusive use of natural languages. If you go back far enough - for Christianity, I think it would be before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D., but in general you can go back to the dawn of civilization - there were no "Creeds" and "belief" requirements. I contend that power-hungry "mystics of spirit" seized this value and have held it illegitimately to be used as a bargaining tool to this day. Many of them also used force to eliminate competition. I think anyone who can derive legitimate benefit from them, and is not out to ridicule or undermine them, has a right to participate in these traditions. I find it particularly unjust that the people most vehemently denied access are the ones who take responsibility for their own minds - the best among men. I saw religion the way you would think for about 12 years, until I began an in-depth discusson of aesthetics in my local Objectivist community group. During this discussion, I realized two things that had been lurking in my mind and that I'd been evading and trying to bury for years: while I enjoy good art, I really do not have the sense-of-life reaction that Rand describes. For me, it doesn't "work" : religious fantasy, mythology, and mysticism (the style of writing, not the epistemology) do perform this role for me - giving metaphysical abstractions the persuasive, irresistible power of reality. This was not a particularly pleasant insight for a dedicated Objectivist. I ascribe this to continuous religious indoctrination during the first 12 years of my life. During these crucial, non-repeatable, formative years of my developing consciousness, my capacity to respond to art was captured and redirected to religion instead. The advantage to this is that much of religious symbolism is accessible at any time and needs no physical objects to perform it's role. The disadvantages are, well, I think quite obvious to Objectivists. I would expect anyone who was not religiously indoctrinated as a child to be disinterested in (and probably repulsed by) the idea of infiltrating religion. But for me it's worth trying, and I wouldn't mind finding others who also would think so with whom to strategize (and commiserate). For me (and I suspect others like me), the traditions of religion - the ceremonies, symbols, fictional/mythological characters, etc. are "locked in" to my consciousness, and serving a life-fulfilling role that's being held hostage - not for simple cash or slave-labor - but for the most precious treasure any man has: his intellectual sovereignty; the right to own and direct his own perception of reality; the freedom to say "from my experience and by my understanding, this is true". I think most people in my situation make one of six basic choices: denounce and abandon religion, and find some kind of substitute activity that can fulfill it's role as well as possible. continue to practice their religion, and attempt to abandon their minds to the religious authorities and evade and discount the evidence in front their own eyes in favor of the "revealed truth". continue to practice their religion, but only pretend to believe. continue to practice their religion, but construct complex coils of rationalizations that can allow them to field and swallow every irrational, superstitious, or supernatural assertion with which agreement is demanded of them. continue to practice their religion, but secretly do so rationally: consciously aware that it's a kind of art form, that God and His adventures are not stories of actual creatures and events, but are myths that relate real truths about reality - metaphysical abstractions - in the more beautiful, and more efficient symbolic language of allegory. continue to practice their religion, do so rationally, and don't make a secret of it. This is the one I'm advocating. One additional point: "faith", as used by religion, is a package-deal. Of course we'd reject the belief in the supernatural part. But religion also includes in this package "confidence" - in oneself and in existence - the benevolent universe premise. These last are objective values.

Jaynes calls his work something like "psychological archeology" - an attempt to explore how human consciousness might have been prior to it's present condition. It's the only thing I've ever read like this, and like I said, I probably don't have a very accurate understanding of his theory. It seems unlikely that, when the homo sapiens DNA pattern arrived on the scene, it's first organisms would have fully functional human consciousness with all it's present capabilities. Are there other, better, theories you'd recommend ? [i took the liberty of answering your other question over in "Ethics->Objectivists Need a Church, Too" ]

Agreed. It would be a kind of "pre-volition". Probably not. I do have a habit projecting some kind of sense into non-sense. The book does make a good door stop, and I won't budge on that ! I don't recommend it as a general practice - only for those who have any inclination to do so.

It might also be helpful to look at the facts in reality that tempt people to come up with the notion of "unconditional love". I remember having a discussion with S.B. (a non-Objectivist parenting professional) about parenting. S.B. was explaining how children need to have some realm of "solid ground" from which to push-off and grow. Many parents, however, fail to provide this by providing only "conditional love". For example, if the kid performs some parentally desired behavior like her homework, she experiences parental love, but not if she doesn't. This kind of world experience, where in one moment "the Universe" is benevolent, and in the next it's malevolent, undercuts a child's ability to develop a healthy sense of living in a predictable, stable Universe. To provide the "solid ground", the parent needs instead to be able to express love for the child even when the child is misbehaving; even while correcting the child's behavior and providing appropriate consequences to the misbehavior. I think S.B. was about to, or had already used the term "unconditional love" to describe this, went it dawned on me that what they mean by "unconditional love", is love for the child's (developing) character - love for the person that the child is, her deeper, more permanent aspects. So I said "oh - you mean to love the child's character more than her immediate behavior or misbehavior". S.B. seemed confused, and not wanting to try to explain who Ayn Rand was and the entire Objectivist philosophy, I just said "I recently read an argument against unconditional love, how people who have causeless fear are treated for their problem, but not when they express causeless love". She had the most bizarre look on her face and said "against unconditional love ?". Unfortunately, once this need is expressed as "unconditional love", instead of being a call to develop lovable character, it becomes the exact opposite - license to indulge in any irrational whim, and still expect to be loved. Parents who try to implement this also fail to provide the "solid ground" that the child needs.

I received the book as a gift in 1987, about a year after I started seriously reading Rand. I started reading the forward, and when I got to the part where he tries to highlight the mysterious nature of consciousness by pointing out it's lack of physical characteristics, and especially when he belittled concepts with the idea that "no one has ever seen a tree, only this or that particular one", the book became a door stop for about 15 years. However a couple years ago a guy I worked with who is quite intelligent and a good manager told me he'd read it, and that I was the first person he'd met who'd heard of the book, and he recommended I read it, so I did. Unfortunately our paths parted shortly afterward and I never got a chance to discuss it with him. My understanding of Jaynes' theory is not so much that bicameral men lacked volition and consciousness, but that their experience of consciousness was extremely different than ours. They had volition, but it was not something they consciously experienced as such - it was experienced indirectly as auditory hallucinations. The hallucinations were not random neuron firings, but were the result of primitive, obviously non-rational "thinking" - maybe better described as associating - that went on unconsciously. I found his idea that bicameral consciousness was both maintained by social interactions, and after it evolved to normal consciousness is held off by social interactions, to be interesting. It approaches social metaphysics, but it's more like "social psycho-epistemology". I also often wonder if when I engage in mental/imaginary dialogs with myself or with people who aren't around ("if he says this, I'll say that..."), it isn't vestigial bicameral mental behavior. And had I not be raised in modern society, and somehow survived to adulthood without any training, whether this kind of mental chatter could have become so intense as to be externalized in the form of hallucinations. His theory explains how modern society arose out of mysticism and belief in gods, not how society fell into it. Mysticism and belief in gods is the default. Rand talks about this with respect to savages and early childhood consciousness.

Since you're here, you probably don't need to be reminded, but poison hidden in a delightful delicacy - ir- or anti-rationalism fed to your unconscious mind while your conscious mind is being delighted by nubile young ladies - is still deadly. Don't forget to turn off the sound.

The agnostic thinks he's safely avoiding a choice, and safe from the accusation of being wrong, by abstaining from claiming whether or not God exists. But he miscalculates. Failing to choose in this case is the choice not to know; it's the choice to remain outside the realm of right and wrong, the choice to abandon his mind. The wrongest of the wrong. Any debater may think he's being fair by allowing his opponent to make arbitrary assertions, and not rejecting them out of hand. He makes the same miscalculation. By accepting and attempting to refute or in any way deal rationally with the arbitrary, he accepts the premise that knowledge has no connection to existence. He thereby incapacitates reason, and removes himself and his opponent from the realm of justice, making any kind of fairness impossible. This is the height of unfairness, primarily to himself, but also to his opponent. The 'agnostic' media makes this same miscalculation. By failing to identify the evil nature of these murderous animals - as if there could possibly be some context in which terrorizing defenseless young children would be just - they think they are being unbiased. They think that by refusing to identify any "good guys" or "gad guys", they are safe from the accusation of "choosing sides". But by demonstrating this refusal to make moral judgement they advocate the removal of the only weapon any good guys would have - reason - giving powerful support to the evil, and reveal thereby their bias. In the short run, this kind of clandestine support for evil increases sales of their information; gets them "more stories". In the long run, their common sense motivates consumers to seek alternative sources of information, and perminently brands this scum as the fear-mongering, hatred-promoting vermon that they are. Just look at the extreme measures they are trying to use to maintain their viewership. Don't give them the satisfaction of your screams - especially within the sanctuary of your own mind. Just walk away. Find another source for your information. Subscribe to the Intellectual Activist Daily .

I agree with Inspector's assessment - Prescott's grabbing a few out-of-context phrases from Rand's writings. constructiing an "argument", and showing how easily he can refute the "dilettante"'s argument. Note especially that the argument he's refuting (his straw man) is not Rand's argument. It's something that he's cooked up. If you try to refute his argument, you could end up trying to show that "his straw man still lives". But since he made it up out of thin air, only pasting bits and pieces of Rand's argument to make it appear like it's hers, he can kill it willy-nilly; so there's no way to defeat this argument. Attempting to do so is a kind of trap. But go ahead and struggle with it for a while - you won't loose a leg or anything. The key is to obtain a first-handedly clear understanding of Rand's argument. Do you know about "reduction" - the practice of reducing your concepts to their referents in reality ? I think Bowzer's got you pointed in the right direction.

I think Geist is referring to "metaphysics" as the term is commonly understood - not the technical, Objectivist definition. Go into a "metaphysical bookstore" sometime and you'll see what I mean. On a similar note, go to a "pagan" gathering sometime. Brush up on your newspeak.

When I am asked whether I am Catholic, I reply "What do you mean ?". I was raised in the tradition and know the customs and the mythology quite well, and if that's all they want to talk about, that's fine. It seems like saying "I am an atheist" may not really be answering the question they are asking. It's almost like picking a fight. Like if someone asked you "are you an American ?", and you say "I am a Capitalist". There are many secular Jews, and even many atheist Jews who go to the most reformed synagogues for social reasons and more abstract discourse and are open about their beliefs. I think today, if someone presumes you are irrational because of your religious upbringing, that's their problem, and you can gently straighten them out later in the conversation if they've made that assumption.

With current technology, death is inevitable. To make it the standard of evil, is to make evil inevitable. Death is not an evil when you've lived your life to it's fullest, your body no longer can function, and your mind is loosing it's grasp. I wouldn't call it good though. At this point, as one's existence approaches it's end, one is ceasing to be human, and ethics no longer apply. Ethics are for the living. When I read the topic title, I thought you were addressing the other side of this - is it more evil to kill than to enslave ? And I thought of Galt's statement: If you turn this around, having force initiated against you is an evil worse than death - a destruction of one's capacity to live. Why is this worse than death ? Because in life, qua Man one has the ability to achieve values and happiness - a positive state. In death, there is nothing - death is a neutral state. To be thus enslaved by force, one would be in a condition of being aware of existence without the ability to achieve values or happiness - in perpetual frustration - a negative state, more evil than death. Don't equivocate about involuntary labor (to pay taxes) being any kind of freedom. It is actual slavery - the most commonly experienced and evaded form.

I'm not really talking about any particular form of Christianity. I'm talking about an attitude that can be adopted by practitioners of any form, and also of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and any other religion. Religious institutions are no less vulnerable to corruption by bad philosophy than any other institution. The prevalent morality that current Christian leaders allow to be taught is a manifestation of altruism - it is not the cause. Christianity is a religion - in essence a mythology - which can and in some circles is used to express rational egoism as well as altruism. One sort of "afterlife" is a spiritual afterlife. In this view, a person who has denied the absolutism of existence, who has turned his mind away from reality and has devoted his consciousness to evasion, rationalization and denial, is spiritually dead. If such a person were to take stock of his life and see "the error of his ways", see that existence is all there is and that living is the only thing to do, he can be "reborn" spiritually, and return to a value-creating and life-loving existence. In this view, there is no notion of ghosts or supernatural dimensions.

I came across a little book written by George Santayana in the early 1900's called _Reason in Religion_. After reading that book, I'm convinced that religion can and ought to be an objective value in man's life. The problem is that today, supernaturalism and mysticism have permeated religion so completely, that those who seek to remove it are viciously attacked (for example: retired Bishop Jack Spong, who partially advocates this kind of improvement, has received 16 death threats - all from fundamentalist religionists; none, he notes, from atheists, agnostics, or humanists). Santayana presents religion as practiced by the ancient Greeks as an example of it's rational use. The Greeks used "God" and "the Gods" as allegorical, poetic devices to refer to various aspects of reality in a way that can both bring greater efficiency of language, and also a sense of beauty and art to what would otherwise be dry, abstract discourse. I think there are actually many church-goers who realize that religious teaching is essentially symbolic and representational and is most valuable when not taken literally. These are usually the older ones, who live quiet, happy lives, and who derive real personal value from their religion. I'd call them the rational religionists. I think they realize at some level that the true value religion provides is what Rand identifies as the epistemological value of art: the concretization of wide metaphysical abstractions that we need to have immediately available for day-to-day life, but are too broad to be effectively captured and contained in manageable prose. The rational religionist gets from his image of Jesus what an Objectivist gets from his image of John Galt. The problem is, if any of these church-goers were to say "but it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually rose from the dead; in fact, it's absurd to think that He did. What matters is that the story inspires us to keep struggling through life's difficulties, and to maintain a measure of hope for the future", that church-goer would be viciously denounced as a blasphemer and un-believer. A couple experiences like this, and the rational religionist learns to keep his views to himself. I don't think Objectivists need a new church. I think Objectivists (who have any inclination to do so) should infiltrate the churches they abandonded and, strengthened by their knowledge of Objectivism, help provide a voice for the rational religionists. Its taken centuries to develop some of these great and beautiful traditions, and it's a crime to leave them in the hands of irrationalists who demand the surrender of one's intellectual sovereignty as payment for admission. I think it's time we took them back.

Compete article