Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hello, First Post Here. Thank You All!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've been an Ayn Rand enthusiast for some time now; I’m 20 years old. My first experiences were in high school reading Anthem at work (yeah, yeah, I was a security guard and not really securing to well I guess). I’ve just finished Atlas Shrugged and I’m starting The Fountainhead. I also found the “Playboy” interview very interesting.

I have a question about the belief in a higher power and objectivist thought. It seems to me that the issue is not black and white. I’d say I’m agnostic and don’t believe that it is 100% fact that there is not a God. Thus I say that non-evidence of god is not evidence against God and therefore does not have a right and wrong and can not result in an objective answer.

The post on the environment also was interesting; I know that when it become economic to turn to alternative fuels it will occur. So many people “feel” that it’s the government’s job to force the use of ethanol however, if the government stepped out, stopped subsidizing land and the oil industry than the price of ethanol and other bio-based fuels would be competitive with petrol based fuels. It is not the governments job to force people to come up with alternative fuels by a set time, when the supply of oil runs out and the demand for an alternative that blend seamlessly with our current infrastructure is needed it will become obvious that ethanol and vegetable oil based fuels are the most viable alternative. One example is that I drive a diesel Mercedes, I get used vegetable oil for free and run my car on that, simply for economic reasons. If the government would step back our minds could find an economic way to use alternative fuels that also are better for the environment.

Uh, other than that, hello, and I’m glad I found this forum.

-Nate Cannon “CannonBall”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been an Ayn Rand enthusiast for some time now; I’m 20 years old. My first experiences were in high school reading Anthem at work (yeah, yeah, I was a security guard and not really securing to well I guess). I’ve just finished Atlas Shrugged and I’m starting The Fountainhead. I also found the “Playboy” interview very interesting.

Welcome to the forum, Nate!

I have a question about the belief in a higher power and objectivist thought. It seems to me that the issue is not black and white. I’d say I’m agnostic and don’t believe that it is 100% fact that there is not a God. Thus I say that non-evidence of god is not evidence against God and therefore does not have a right and wrong and can not result in an objective answer.

What do you mean, the issue is "not black and white?" Either there is a god, or there isn't, wouldn't you say?

Objectivism advocates atheism, the basic reason being that agnosticism is the refusal to dismiss the arbitrary. It is true that the non-evidence of god is technically not evidence against god--but that is certainly not evidence for god, which leaves the assertion that god exists at the status of the arbitrary. You can find more detail about the Objectivist position in chapter five of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, or the sections on "agnosticism" and the "arbitrary" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of God is not black and white. One cannot give a 100% correct answer on the existence of God; therefore there is no objective answer to it. That said, after reading some of the forum I don't think religion or belief in a higher power is an issue that should hang up objectivists, it is not relevant to capitalism as long as religion stays out of government. Objectivism would work fine with people believing in a higher power or choosing not to. No?

Thanks for the warm welcome!

-Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of God is not black and white. One cannot give a 100% correct answer on the existence of God; therefore there is no objective answer to it.

But you claim to be quite clear on the issue, don't you? Being agnostic, you are seeking to straddle a fence that you yourself admit to exist by even bringing this issue up. But let me ask you to apply your agnosticism to your own statement. Are you exactly 50% correct? Are you 80% correct? Certainly you aren't 100% correct otherwise that would be a blatant contradiction. Tell me also whether you wake up in the morning on Monday believing in God but come Tuesday evening you are an atheist. Or are you one of those people who claim to "suspend belief" entirely?

Agnosticism is a cognitive impossibility. Your mind works in black and white (true and false); every thought you have implies one or the other. Agnosticism is an attempt to breach the nature of cognition.

You should read Chapter 5, "The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False" in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Let me leave you with some words from Miss Rand:

The dominant doctrine of today's philosophy is epistemological agnosticism. In application to practical reality, this doctrine is either futile or disastrously destructive, that is: either a man has to ignore it altogether and struggle as best he can, without any philosophical guidance—or, if he accepts it, he has to stop dead, paralyzed by uncertainty, and be taken over by the first thug or dictator who chooses to make loud, arbitrary assertions, while he, the victim, can refute nothing and answer nothing, possessing no intellectual weapons but the lethal: "Who am I to know? How can I be certain of anything?" Man has to act in reality, he has to have knowledge in order to act—and whenever philosophy collapses into epistemological agnosticism, it is defaulting on and betraying its primary function.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of God is not black and white.

Either God exists or God doesn't exist. There is no other option. (Aristotle's Law of Excluded Middle.)

One cannot give a 100% correct answer on the existence of God; therefore there is no objective answer to it.
"To say of that which, that it is, or to say of that which is not, that it is not, is true." That's Aristotle, too. So if God exists and you say so, you are 100% correct. If there is no God and we say there is no God, we are 100% correct.

That said, after reading some of the forum I don't think religion or belief in a higher power is an issue that should hang up objectivists, it is not relevant to capitalism as long as religion stays out of government. Objectivism would work fine with people believing in a higher power or choosing not to. No?

No.

That is because Objectivism is not primarily about capitalism. It is primarily about ethics and ethics is primarily about rationality. It is not rational to accept any idea without proper evidence. As a consequence, Objectivists don't believe in God -- and a lot of other popular, but rationally unsupported, ideas.

==

Despite the above disagreement, welcome and let us reason together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see how one can say without a doubt that there is no higher power?
That's a misunderstanding of what Objectivism holds. In the section of OPAR that I recommended you read, Nate, Dr. Peikoff discusses a very important rule of logic:
the onus of proof is on him who asserts the positive, and that one must not attempt to prove a negative.

All an atheist is saying is, "You (the theist) are the one making the claim. It's, thus, your job to show me the reasons why I should believe in God." When no reasons are given, the atheist properly acts as if nothing was said at all, i.e., that their claim is arbitrary. Do you see how this is different from saying without a doubt that "God does not exist?" An agnostic, on the other hand, sees the theist's faith-based claim (meaning no evidence at all has been given) as a bona fide claim. Agnostics violate the rule of logic that "one must not attempt to prove a negative."

I still recommend that you read that section of OPAR but, in essence, this is the issue:

     Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. It is the philosophic viewpoint that demands such pleading—in regard to effusions that are disconnected from evidence. The viewpoint poses as being fair, balanced, impartial. As should now be obvious, however, it is rife with fallacies and with prejudice.

     The agnostic treats arbitrary claims as matters properly open to consideration, discussion, evaluation. He allows that it is "possible" that these claims are "true," thereby applying cognitive descriptions to verbiage that is at war with cognition. He demands proof of a negative: it's up to you, he declares, to show that there are no demons, or that your sex life is not a result of your previous incarnation as a pharaoh of ancient Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really should read all that, and when I get the time I’ll consider it. However, now in my naïve youth I prefer question my elders. That said, the fact that the higher power debate is delegated to the arbitrary precisely means that a hard argument either way is pointless. You can say "yeah, there's probably no god," that's fine given the evidence, but you can't absolutely say that there is not one. You argue that just because there is a final answer means that we are aware of that result. I was considering trying to claim that evidence of a higher power is the fact that matter exists. The laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something from nothing; no matter is created or destroyed. This would suggest that at one point in time the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, a higher power? No, not necessarily, all it proves is that there are phenomena that we do not comprehend and that exactly proves the argument that "there either is or there isn't, no middle ground" is a logical fallacy.

-Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannonball

The laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something from nothing; no matter is created or destroyed. This would suggest that at one point in time the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, a higher power? No, not necessarily, all it proves is that there are phenomena that we do not comprehend and that exactly proves the argument that "there either is or there isn't, no middle ground" is a logical fallacy.

Non-sequitor, meet Nate; Nate meet non-sequitor. Those laws are a good argument for the eternality of the universe, but a blatant contradiction of how you interpreted it. If it can't be created, then it was always here. If the matter in the universe wasn't here before where was it if not inthe universe? Where did it come from? And how did it get here since there was nothing? If there was no matter in the universe, then there was, then that means that you got something from nothing. Hence, you've already thrown out your premise. You can bring a "god" in, but it answers no questions. It is an arbitrary postulate.

Ps. You murdered someone last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is any of my last post illogical? I didn’t conclude God from the argument; I said it might suggest a God, it might also suggest that we are a science fair experiment. Your post further proves that it is not an issue in which the absolute answer is known, hence there can be no right or wrong answer. You are trying to use the law of logic to battle the laws of science, if the laws contradict at the beginning of the universe, one of them must be wrong. As an engineer I chose science, you may take logic. I suggest you also re-read my post as you restated a lot of it with different wording. Is it that hard to admit even the possibility of a gray area?

-Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that the higher power debate is delegated to the arbitrary precisely means that a hard argument either way is pointless. You can say "yeah, there's probably no god," that's fine given the evidence, but you can't absolutely say that there is not one. You argue that just because there is a final answer means that we are aware of that result.

You didn't grasp what I said. I'm not saying, "there's probably no god," I'm saying that it's up to the assertor to give the evidence supporting his assertion. I (the atheist) am not making any assertion. Thus, you are mistaken in thinking that there is some sort of debate occurring here that leads to a "final answer."

all it proves is that there are phenomena that we do not comprehend and that exactly proves the argument that "there either is or there isn't, no middle ground" is a logical fallacy.

Let me get this straight...are you saying that you know that there are some things that we do not know about at this time? What is your evidence for these things that we do not yet know about and how did you come to know about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is any of my last post illogical? I didn’t conclude God from the argument; I said it might suggest a God, it might also suggest that we are a science fair experiment. Your post further proves that it is not an issue in which the absolute answer is known, hence there can be no right or wrong answer. You are trying to use the law of logic to battle the laws of science, if the laws contradict at the beginning of the universe, one of them must be wrong. As an engineer I chose science, you may take logic. I suggest you also re-read my post as you restated a lot of it with different wording. Is it that hard to admit even the possibility of a gray area?

-Nate

So logic and science are at odds, are they? How do you know which one to go with, then?

By the way, it's not just that there's no evidence for god, and the assertion that he exists is thus arbitrary (although that's true)--it's also the case that the notion of god is self-contradictory. Not only do you have no grounds for saying that he does or even might exist--he simply can't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nate

How is any of my last post illogical? I didn’t conclude God from the argument; I said it might suggest a God, it might also suggest that we are a science fair experiment. Your post further proves that it is not an issue in which the absolute answer is known, hence there can be no right or wrong answer. You are trying to use the law of logic to battle the laws of science, if the laws contradict at the beginning of the universe, one of them must be wrong. As an engineer I chose science, you may take logic. I suggest you also re-read my post as you restated a lot of it with different wording. Is it that hard to admit even the possibility of a gray area?

-Nate

I thought I was pretty clear about the illogic of your argument in my post. You keep proving the point of your opponent. Your argument of thermodynamics proves this: the universe is eternal, and matter is indestructible. It doesn't suggest anything that you said it does.

If you assert something, it is up to you to provide evidence for it. Until that time I am obliged to dismiss your arbitrary claim out of hand as babbling. It is called the principle of the onus of proof, it is on he that asserts the positive. Hence, an absolute answer is known. Within the full context of knowledge there is not a speck of evidence in favor of your proposition, therefore it is out.

Science and logic are not adversaries! Are you sure you want to play around with that dichotomy? I cut and pasted your quote btw, it is exactly as you wrote it. I phased out nothing in my response.

Is it that hard to admit even the possibility of a gray area?

No, not hard. Impossible. The world is stark fact. Everything is glaring bright with identity, it is this, and it is not that, to say it in general terms. The only gray areas are between the ears of men who will not or have not yet identified some aspect of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something from nothing; no matter is created or destroyed. This would suggest that at one point in time the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, a higher power? No, not necessarily, all it proves is that there are phenomena that we do not comprehend and that exactly proves the argument that "there either is or there isn't, no middle ground" is a logical fallacy.

The laws of thermodynamics disprove the law of excluded middle? :dough: How can one of the fundamental laws of logic be a logical fallacy? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry, I must have been hung over the day they solved grand unified theory in physics. Either you're comfortable making great leaps outside of logic or perhaps you might be just itching to refute something you only wished I had said or you wish were true. Either way, it might be fun to call off the dogs and take a detour on the physics wagon to look at some facts. It is a FACT that we don’t know what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refute this than I suggest you go take a trip to Oxford, have a few cups of coffee with Steven Hawking and solve all the questions of the universe. If not, you cannot objectively say that you know what happened the beginning of our universe. It is FACT at this time that we don’t have general equations that relate microcosmos and macrocosmos, again if any of you have answers to these questions it could prove very lucrative to you. Please tell me what I have said that was false, and how objectivism says that there are right and wrongs in respect to unknowns?

-Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a FACT that we don’t know what happened at the beginning of the universe.

What you say is not a fact. The fact is that the very notion of the "beginning of the universe" is nonsensical. From another recent post:

"Time is a change of relationship and it therefore depends upon the existence of things that can change. To say that the universe began at some particular time is to step outside of the universe to identify that change. But this is, of course, impossible, since the universe is all that is. So time is in the universe, not outside of it, and the notion of a beginning or an end of time makes no sense. You might enjoy reading an excellent essay on The Unbounded, Finite Universe by Silverman. http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U...inite.htm"

Please tell me what I have said that was false, and how objectivism says that there are right and wrongs in respect to unknowns?

Well, for one thing you seem to be having a very difficult time understanding what several posters have tried to convey to you regarding the epistemological status of arbitrary statements. I would suggest that you read all of chapter 5 in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and then perhaps come back to all of the prior posts in the thread for a fresh read.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post further proves that it is not an issue in which the absolute answer is known, hence there can be no right or wrong answer.

On the contrary, the fact of whether an answer is known or not cannot be used as a basis for saying there is no right or wrong answer. I don't know who my great, great, great, great grandfather was, but there is a correct answer as to his identity.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry, I must have been hung over the day they solved grand unified theory in physics. Either you're comfortable making great leaps outside of logic or perhaps you might be just itching to refute something you only wished I had said or you wish were true. Either way, it might be fun to call off the dogs and take a detour on the physics wagon to look at some facts. It is a FACT that we don’t know what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refute this than I suggest you go take a trip to Oxford, have a few cups of coffee with Steven Hawking and solve all the questions of the universe. If not, you cannot objectively say that you know what happened the beginning of our universe. It is FACT at this time that we don’t have general equations that relate microcosmos and macrocosmos, again if any of you have answers to these questions it could prove very lucrative to you. Please tell me what I have said that was false, and how objectivism says that there are right and wrongs in respect to unknowns?

-Nate

Even if any of these supposed facts were true, you would still be engaging in a logical fallacy--argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue from: "We don't know that god doesn't exist," to: "Therefore, god exists!" or even: "Therefore, god might exist!"

What I'm curious about is, why do you want so badly to hang onto that possibility? Somehow, I don't think that it's to explain the "beginning of the universe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...