Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God, Theism, Religion and Objectivism

Rate this topic


Mammon

Recommended Posts

I have a friend who fevershly believes in God. On a certain day, I tried to convince him that there was no such a thing as "God" and not a sinlge proof of his exsitence or non-existence.

He knew about Atlas Shrugged, so he asked me:

"Why don't you believe in God?"

"Beacuse there's no rational explanation that proves his existence"

"No, there's not, but Kant said, 'God is not a prolbem of reason, is a problem of faith'"

"I don't know what Kant said, I simply cannot belive in the immaterial"

He looked at my with certain suspicious, and said:

"According to Rand, happiness is the ultimate goal and only moral objective for man, isn't it?"

"Yes" I answered

"What if a person is only happy by believing in God? Would you dare to take that happiness from them?"

"Then they would be living a lie"

"But they would be happy in the end..."

Belief in Santa Claus would make you happier than a belief in God. Santa gives you stuff. At least... until you move out of your parents' house and Santa stops coming.

If by happy, he means that they suffer just like any irrational person but try to ignore it by holding onto their emotional security blanket (God, and the promise that they will get into Heaven when they die), then yeah, they're happy.

God isn't real. A statement about God being true or false would rely on there actually being facts about reality pertaining to God which could be tested and proven true or false. God is not true or false, he is completely arbitrary. Humans made him up. Making something up only means you have a good imagination. It has absolutely no implications on reality. Humans making God up adds absolutely no evidence to reality to suggest that God exists.

That's why you don't have to prove he doesn't. The onus is on whoever is trying to claim that he does exist.

Edited by Amaroq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Would you like to talk about math and physics with me? If you have a question I will try to answer it. If you have something new and important to say, I am all ears.

Got any advice that would help with passing my Linear Algebra course?

And I agree, discussing religion and the supernatural is a waste of time. Just forget all about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got any advice that would help with passing my Linear Algebra course?

And I agree, discussing religion and the supernatural is a waste of time. Just forget all about it.

If you have a specific question, pray do ask it. Just understand, I do not do other people's homework.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for my past post:

I wrote that real conversation to know what your opinions were. I just read the post about Santa Claus, and I have a quetions for you, which is strongly related to my previous post:

Why wouldn't you make your kids believe in Santa Claus?

And here comes the trick in the question: I want to hear answers that are not pure logical statements, I want to hear direct testimonies from you and personal anwers to this question.

Now, I will explain the reason why I wrote the previous post.

The friend I had that converstaion with is a musician who expects to make money from his work. Is not one of those people who say the do art just for the love of art, but someone who really wants to make a living trough his art. His music, and his lyrics always talk about the human spirit, but not in the sense that religious pepole do, but understanding the word as the combination of objectives, values, and dreams each and every person possesses for themselves. He doesn't go to church, he denies all other religions, and states that, I quoute: "In only belive in God because the idea, the concept, representes the goals of my life. If you want to call him a superior power, then do it, if you want to call him a human abstraction, then do it".

The point I want to make with all this is the next:

Every sinlge objectivist I've met, simply gives anwers by focusing on logical premises and statements, but so far not of them has told me a more personal answer. I have friends that belive in God, friends that belive in Gaia, friends that state reason as an important part of being human, but not the most important. Each and everyone of those people are the ones I call my best friends, for they chosed their beliefs, and never let anyone impose them.

Little story before finishing this post:

I have a niece, and when she turned 12, on a christmas, her mother told her: "I have to tell you somehting, Santa Claus doesn't exists". My niece answered, with a big smile on her face: "I always knew that, but I liked to believe in him because I wanted to"

She never cried or went sad by knowing the "truth", and she never mentioned Santa Claus again.

Edited by Shinji Shiranui
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Are you saying that making use of reason and logic isn't a good way of obtaining beliefs, and that people who have come to their beliefs this way are disingenuous? If beliefs are those things that we think are true about reality/existence, what other way is there to come to them except by reason and logic? Do you think your friends somehow arrived at their beliefs without using reason and logic? In doing so they would have to contradict every bit of their very nature, as reason and logic, combined with experimentation, is how we come to know anything. In other words, the very fact that your friends hold any beliefs at all is proof that reason and logic is the only way to obtain any beliefs. Otherwise, you would have to concede the position that they obtained their beliefs by revelation. And what is the source of the revelation? God? Vishnu? Spaghetti Monster? Gaia?

When you meet a true Objectivist, you are meeting someone who has obtained their beliefs in the same way your friends have, except the Objectivist is much more noble and thorough in his pursuit.

Edited by Alexandros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little aclaration for my previous post. I'm not denying reason, or saying that it is not the ay to acvhieve knowledge. I seem to have a problem at clarifying myself, so I will try again.

When I said, not to give answers based on "pure logic" I meant to say that I prefered an answer that described a personal matter, in other words, that you gave me an example like "I remember this time when..."or something like story, and anecdot (not sure if that's the word) that allow me to know, form your direct experience, your thoughts and ideas.

The kind of answer I don't want is, for example "You shouldn't make your sons believe in Santa because A is A, or because their premises are wrong", I want you to tell me a personal answer.

If I can't make myself understand this time, then I might have to improve my comunication methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." 1 Corinthians 13:11

Children are not just 'smaller rational egoists' they are fundamentally different, they think and perceive differently than we do/ Here is a wiki article on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

Does this change the picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." 1 Corinthians 13:11

Children are not just 'smaller rational egoists' they are fundamentally different, they think and perceive differently than we do/ Here is a wiki article on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

Does this change the picture?

Thanks, it does change the picture.

Allow me to share with you a little explanation I gave to this friend of mine I mentioned, about God. I would like to read your opinions about it.

I told him that I do not believe in an almighty god controlling our lives and our fates. Basically, someone who believes in a higher power influencing his or her life is giving away the responsibility of their own actions. Its easier to say "It was God's will" than to say "it was MY fault". Also, believing in a magical power that wll simply give everthing you want by just praying to it is a way of admitting that the person does not have the will or even the desire to achieve the things they want. Is just like an extreme form of lazyness, the way I see it.

However, I do believe in this:

The Universe is a system ruled by the laws of physics. Everything in it, from the smallest atom, to the greatest star, follow the same rules, and never disobey them. The purpose of this system is its own preservation and evolution by creating new methods for improving itself, like finding new parts for a clock or a car.

The evolution of living creatures, including us, serves to the same purporse. Here I must clarify, the Universe is not a sentient entity, like a white bearded man saying "your purpose is this". Not, the purpose of life is to preserve itself, and teach its heirs new ways of doing so, through genetics or, in the case of humans, through teachings.

When some of my friends say "everything is connected" I agree with them, but not in the pseudo religious manner of New Age beliefs. The elements that compose us, are generated on the stars themselves, like giant factories of chemical, and utterly, biochemical elements. This is the closest thing to a "god" that I can think of.

In my introduction post I said that I disagree on the statement that man is the greatest power in the world. Man will never be greater that the universe I depicted, or will ever be able to control or understand it a its fullest. Even if man will always recover from natural disaster, we will always be overwhelmed by the power, and, in the end, even the human race will be extinct.

That's why we have to achieve our own happiness and don't worry about the rest.

I wait for your opinions.

Edited by Shinji Shiranui
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're propping up "choice of belief" as a virtue, without reference to how that choice was made. I can flip a coin to determine my beliefs, and by your rationale, I could potentially be your best friend...

About this, what I tried to say was that they learned from many religions, many philosophies and many faiths, and, in the end, chosed the one that suited their values without listening to the ones who said "this belief is wrong, chose cristianity or islam, they're true".

They chosed out of conviction, and comparing their values to those beliefs. No one obliged them. I chosed to believe in objectivism because its values suited my own, and because I agree with the philosophy, and not beacause someone came and told me, "this way of thinking is the future, chosse it"

In the words of Andrew Ryan, a character from the videogame Bioshock. "A man chosses...a slave obeys".

Hope I made myself clear this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Whoever does not know how to lay his will into things, at least lays some meaning into them: that means, that means he has the fiath that they already obey a will"

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from its readiness to fit in with our instinctual wishful impulses. "

A lot of the great modern atheists have the same kind of critique you laid out.

I agree, we're star dust, the universe conscious of its itself, etc etc.

I agree, triumph over the universe is like the story of Sisyphus, it is impossible but the striving is what counts. After all, you don't want to be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why I wouldn't tell my kids that Santa Claus exist:

When I was a kid I studied the sciences. There was no proof, but I was aware of the following: that the Earth is spherical, that the Earth moves around the Sun while tilted at an angle, that because of that the poles are terribly cold. I watched episodes on TV where they show the North Pole as being covered with ice, and populated by polar bears.

I was aware that birds fly but reindeer do not. I was also aware that airplanes fly, that rockets fly, but that sledges do not. Therefore a reindeer-drawn sledge does not fly.

Because of the above points, I've always thought of Santa Claus as impossible, and therefore imaginary.

If I were to tell my kids that Santa Claus exist, I would have to supply evidence to his existence, e.g. how he makes his house habitable, what he eats, how does he make his sledge fly, etc. which is impossible.

So I just wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

*** Mod's note: Merged topic. sN ***

If we exist as we do today, and reality is an objective truth, then the existence or non-existence of God has zero impact on the order of the universe and our ability to perceive it as having scientific, rational explanations of function.

If God exists as the highest form of structure in the universe, is it logical to assume that he is irrational? If the consciousness that coded all the physical properties of matter was irrational, from where did order arise? From where did rational thought originate? We observe in nature events so tiny and fast they exist on an almost imperceivable scale, and yet the specific and variable rhythm and form of these tiny events are the building blocks that combine to create the physical world we perceive. Even our perceptions are based on a structure of order, and function. Even supposedly chaotic events, when broken down have mathematical/scientific explanations that describe the fundamental forces in them.

Obviously, as time has gone on we've refined our ability to observe the inner workings of the universe. A being that hurls lightning from the tops of clouds is not a better explanation than the static discharge of particles. But this doesn't mean that a being of God's description couldn't have created a "code of reality" that made particles react to situations dynamically to achieve a repeatable, scientific result under specified conditions. All this means is that a "magical" explanation of lightning's existence is not accurate.

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss the existence of God based on the premise that if God were to exist, things would not have a rational/scientific explanation. It is a fundamental flaw of reason to dismiss the existence of God simply because you imagine him as an irrational being incapable of creating a scientifically validatable universe. If you disagree with this, then ask yourself these questions:

Does the architect cease to exist once his buildings are erected? Or is it an extension of his being? Does the inventor of a motor become an irrational whim simply because his motor is being used by others? Or is he upheld with honor? Does a composer become a mystical collective entity once his composition is performed for an audience? Or is his creativity admired?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God doesn't exist. Really, civilization should be beyond this point. And you should be beyond posting a rambling topic when there are thousands of posts about God. Please, enlighten us with an original thought...in one of the many topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really would appreciate an open discussion on this topic. Even if it is a discussion you feel you've had 1000 times before, I've met very few people who see that science and reason, and God are not mutually exclusive.

I've looked at multiple reasons people use to dismiss God, and nearly all of them operate on the premise that they imagine God as being irrational, and because rationality exists, God can't exist.

I personally hold the conviction that God exists, but I won't hesitate to declare the possibility of his non-existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This board has maybe, five dozen topics on God? I donno, check it out. Probability of a forum dedicated to philosophy having a God topic is so damn close that it's basically a necessary truth, if Objectivists were committed to such things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This board has maybe, five dozen topics on God? I donno, check it out. Probability of a forum dedicated to philosophy having a God topic is so damn close that it's basically a necessary truth, if Objectivists were committed to such things

My searching has been mostly non-conclusive, both within this forum and on google. Sure, there are topics that talk "about God", but I haven't been able to find one that talks directly about the points that I have in a forum environment which is why I created a new topic, for a new discussion. I figured this forum would be the best place to start this because I believe objectivists to be the only group of people capable of such a discussion.

For example, I found a person whose post contained this:

"They believe that without God,

Life is meaningless.

The universe is incomprehensible.

There is no morality by which we can live.

We can never be certain of the truth."

I read those statements and I find I don't agree with a single one of them. In fact my entire existence is proof that those statements are invalid. My entire world view wholely rejects those things that he has ascribed to those that believe in God.

Another example I found:

"Many people subscribe to the view that science and religion do not conflict because they deal with different areas of knowledge."

I am not one of those many people.

Edited by Big B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer your post, why not.

If we exist as we do today, and reality is an objective truth, then the existence or non-existence of God has zero impact on the order of the universe and our ability to perceive it as having scientific, rational explanations of function.

Not true. I don't knw what you mean by the "order of the Universe", but the existence of a God defined as being above reason and logic would negate reason and logic. And the most common definitions of God are that way.

If God exists as the highest form of structure in the universe, is it logical to assume that he is irrational? If the consciousness that coded all the physical properties of matter was irrational, from where did order arise?

Strawman. Objectivism assumes that God doesn't exist, and that the claim itself is irrational, not that He's irrational.

From where did rational thought originate?

I'm gonna have to point your attention towards the Theory of Evolution on that one. Not going to explain it in detail though, nor will I argue with anyone who opposes it.

Obviously, as time has gone on we've refined our ability to observe the inner workings of the universe. A being that hurls lightning from the tops of clouds is not a better explanation than the static discharge of particles. But this doesn't mean that a being of God's description couldn't have created a "code of reality" that made particles react to situations dynamically to achieve a repeatable, scientific result under specified conditions.

No, what you listed does not mean that God couldn't have done all the things you say he did. However, the lack of evidence that he did do any of that, the fact that you are basing your claim of God not on evidence of your senses, but on pure speculation originating in your mind or in the minds of others, and the general inconsistency of your claim with reason and logic, do mean exactly that.

All this means is that a "magical" explanation of lightning's existence is not accurate.

If I specify one other demonstrable conclusion, any conclusion at all, besides "that explanation of lightning is inaccurate", that arises form the the human knowledge you listed in this paragraph, will you drop this claim that your conclusion is the only one we could possibly draw from all that?

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss the existence of God based on the premise that if God were to exist, things would not have a rational/scientific explanation. It is a fundamental flaw of reason to dismiss the existence of God simply because you imagine him as an irrational being incapable of creating a scientifically validatable universe. If you disagree with this, then ask yourself these questions:

A strawman is indeed a fallacious argument. But, again, it's your strawman, the Objectivist or atheist position on general is not that God exists and he's irrational, it's that God doesn't exist.

Does the architect cease to exist once his buildings are erected? Or is it an extension of his being?

Neither. Not that it matters, since that argument by metaphor is an actual logical fallacy. This is the last time I will point that out, from now on I will ignore all metaphors as non-arguments, including the ones in the rest of this paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we exist as we do today, and reality is an objective truth, then the existence or non-existence of God has zero impact on the order of the universe and our ability to perceive it as having scientific, rational explanations of function.

THEREFORE , it is irrational to even think about a god. Full stop, stop wasting time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the existence of a God defined as being above reason and logic would negate reason and logic. And the most common definitions of God are that way.

This is the core of this entire issue, those are the common definitions of God. But where does that "common definition" originate from, a mysterious collective? I don't hold this viewpoint of God at all. I don't claim God's existence as being above reason and logic.

If I were supporting the notion that God's existence was above reason and logic, then I can understanding dismissing His existence on the grounds of an objectivist philosophy. Again, all you seem to be using as a basis for dismissing God is that you perceive him as being outside the realm of reality. Which, if God exists, He exists within reality. If He doesn't exist, then He doesn't in any reality.

No, what you listed does not mean that God couldn't have done all the things you say he did. However, the lack of evidence that he did do any of that, the fact that you are basing your claim of God not on evidence of your senses, but on pure speculation originating in your mind or in the minds of others, and the general inconsistency of your claim with reason and logic, do mean exactly that.

I must be mis-communicating somehow.

My point is that the universe is comprised of observable, explainable structures. IF God created the Universe, then it stands to reason that God himself is rational as he is the one that created things -with- that observable explainable structure.

I'm gonna have to point your attention towards the Theory of Evolution on that one. Not going to explain it in detail though, nor will I argue with anyone who opposes it.

I'm not debating the method by which a universe would "evolve" with or without the presence of a creator. If God created things, what reason would he have to create things "supernaturally" instead of naturally? In other words, why wouldn't things look and be as they are today given the existence and function of God as the creator and designer? If God existed, what would we see change?

The answer is: nothing. So is belief in God pointless? It is then equally as pointless then as unbelief in God, if it has no effect on how we perceive reality which is the basis for objectivism. This doesn't speak to me of a rational vs irrational issue. More of a, do you prefer chicken, or pork?

If I specify one other demonstrable conclusion, any conclusion at all, besides "that explanation of lightning is inaccurate", that arises form the the human knowledge you listed in this paragraph, will you drop this claim that your conclusion is the only one we could possibly draw from all that?

Of course!

THEREFORE , it is irrational to even think about a god. Full stop, stop wasting time.'

By what standard is it irrational to "even think" about a god? The only conclusion that I am able to come to is that God exists, or doesn't exist. Not simply: God doesn't exist.

My base point is this: IF God exists, and has created everything, then he IS a rational being that is WITHIN reality, and GIVEN THOSE CONDITIONS a conviction that God exists is NOT irrational! Things as they are right now could not have been designed by an irrational being! Rational thought would not be possible within a designed universe if the designer were not rational because there would be no rational order to perceive to give context to our own existence. Therefore, if God exists, then he is rational.

This is your: God doesn't exist.

With no further examples or logic other than objectivism says so? And because some people somewhere claim that God is above logic and reason therefore the true nature of God must be that and therefore can't exist? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the core of this entire issue, those are the common definitions of God. But where does that "common definition" originate from, a mysterious collective?

Nothing mysterious about it. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all very public religions.

I don't hold this viewpoint of God at all. I don't claim God's existence as being above reason and logic.

If I were supporting the notion that God's existence was above reason and logic, then I can understanding dismissing His existence on the grounds of an objectivist philosophy. Again, all you seem to be using as a basis for dismissing God is that you perceive him as being outside the realm of reality. Which, if God exists, He exists within reality. If He doesn't exist, then He doesn't in any reality.

You can define God your way, if you'd like. Until then, I'll assume you view him the way major religions do, or you're refusing to define him on purpose, to avoid the scrutiny of someone applying logic to your definition.

I must be mis-communicating somehow.

My point is that the universe is comprised of observable, explainable structures. IF God created the Universe, then it stands to reason that God himself is rational as he is the one that created things -with- that observable explainable structure.

It stands to what reason? It doesn't stand to the reason I know that anything can be said about an impossible or undefined, false concept. It stands to reason that before we draw a conclusion about what attributes an entity has, that entity must be observed and studied. So, what is this God of yours, where can I find him and how do you know all this?

I'm not debating the method by which a universe would "evolve" with or without the presence of a creator. If God created things, what reason would he have to create things "supernaturally" instead of naturally? In other words, why wouldn't things look and be as they are today given the existence and function of God as the creator and designer? If God existed, what would we see change?

If the Catholic God existed, plenty of things would be different. I don't know what would be different with your God, since you have not explained what it is.

The answer is: nothing.

Unsubstantiated claim. You din't even say what God is, how could you possibly know how something you haven't seen or even defined could affect anything?

So is belief in God pointless? It is then equally as pointless then as unbelief in God, if it has no effect on how we perceive reality which is the basis for objectivism. This doesn't speak to me of a rational vs irrational issue.

It is very relevant to one's rationality if he is using false, undefined concepts: it's irrational to do so. It is also very relevant to one's rationality if he refuses to believe in the existence of something that he knows exists. Even if that something doesn't affect him, this decision speaks to his methods of making decisions in general, including about things that might affect him.

By what standard is it irrational to "even think" about a god?

By the standard of what reason is.

My base point is this: IF God exists, and has created everything, then he IS a rational being that is WITHIN reality, and GIVEN THOSE CONDITIONS a conviction that God exists is NOT irrational!

This is your: God doesn't exist.

Your base point is: I don't have a way of deciding what exists and what doesn't, might as well pick arbitrary, made up concepts, and argue whether it's rational or not to say they exist.

My base point is: I reject the arbitrary, and use reason as my standard of knowledge of reality. By that standard, arbitrary gods don't exist, especially the undefined variety.

As an aside, "God created everything" implies that he either created himself, or he is not part of "everything", as in he's above existence.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has been great... :)

I have defined what I view God as, but I suppose I'll make it more blatant. I define God as a rational being of the highest intelligence and ability. When I look at creation, I cannot help but be amazed at what is around me, just the magnitude of existence is wonderful to behold. And then even more amazing is the fact that within this creation we've the capacity to create entirely new things that don't exist by default. When it is said that we are "made in the image of God", I take that to mean that we are given the capacity to think freely, and to create things.

If the Catholic God existed, plenty of things would be different. I don't know what would be different with your God, since you have not explained what it is.

"

Really? After everything i've said...Okay, I'm sorry I really just must not be communicating my point.

I look at the universe as being a place of order. Matter behaves consistently, and we can interact with that matter in what seems to be a logical manner. Picking up a rock and thinking that it is a flower doesn't make it a flower. A is A. This is the kind of universe we live in, correct?

Now, if it so happens that God exists and designed everything, then I find it reasonable to conclude that he is an extremely rational being. That's what I've been saying from the start. I can't really think of another way to rephrase it.

I wouldn't keep restating it, but it just seems like you're arguing against points that I'm not intending to make.

"Unsubstantiated claim. You din't even say what God is, how could you possibly know how something you haven't seen or even defined could affect anything?"

My premise is that we exist as we do today, as in A is A. Reality is how it is...right now. Not a future reality to be shaped by a new set of variables, but today's reality. So regardless of if God exists and created it, this is how things are. I'm not dealing with a hypothetical reality. Thats what I mean when I say nothing would change.

The only variable here is whether or not the universe was designed and created, or evolved naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define super-god as the rational being of higher intelligence than god. I postulate that is someone so cool as god exists, someone who designed him (i.e. super-god) must be super-cool. I therefore postulate that if super-god exists, he is rational.

I also define ultra-God as...

Edited by softwareNerd
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...