Oh My God!

[mtkaiser]

So, I'm new, but not completely new to objectivism and have come across a few articles that proclaim that there is no god. Is that typical with objectivism??? If so, what are all your views???

[Qwertz]

Is what typical of Objectivism? The existence of atheist articles, or the atheism itself?

By way of a general answer, I point out that Objectivism's epistemology of reason and metaphysics of reality are diametrically incompatible with religion's reliance on faith in a supernatural creator-god. For this reason (and others), Objectivism is an atheist philosophy. I suppose that makes atheism "typical" of Objectivism in the sense that the alternative, theism, is wholly contrary to Objectivism. This may explain why God gets a fair bit of negative play in Objectivist articles.

~Q

[TheEgoist]

How are you defining god? Why is god always assumed to have an intrinsic definition?

Why do people who don't' believe in god constantly talk about god and try to disprove god to people who probably will believe in god regardless of any rational argument?

Does anyone but me find it odd how many atheists love (or are compelled) to talk about (reject and rationalize the existence of) god? Bus ads? WTF?

I never discuss aliens with my son's friends - they believe they exist and I could care less. I never try to go on alien and UFO forums and try to disprove the existence of green men - or even have an urge to discuss it. Is this my next bus ad: There's no aliens dumb people of earth, no go have some fun?

What is going on people? I came here to this forum and I see more talk about god than at a church?

spookthegod

Aliens abducted me when I was 12 and now I have a green thumb.

Why do we discuss God and why are atheists supposedly obsessed with the idea of disproving god.

1. We live in a religious society, in a religious world, with billions of religious people. The topic is bound to be brought up. It is a large question in metaphysics.

2. Those that believe in God often choose to impose their beliefs via the law. Please see for a moderate example, America's banning of gay marriage in the majority of it's states or on an extreme example, women being raped and murdered for being so called "whores", i.e taking off their Burkas.

[TheEgoist]

I must live somewhere else, because no one tries to impose anything on me. I can't remember the last time a Christina gave me a flower. They voted in California - you want to live somewhere where rules are imposed arbitrarily by a minority? If so I'll send you a destination list.

Weak, weak, weak. When they come to your house and put a Jewish star on your arm then come talk to me about god - until then I'm not interested.

spookthegod

Oh my god, it's another religious fanatic on cable TV - help!!!!

Democracy does not make right. You just admitted that they DID impose it in California, so your statement seems to contradict itself. Pick a side, pal.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

There will be treads about it for as long as there are people who don't understand it but do want to find out.

So yea, its going to stay ''typical'' for a while longer.

Edited January 20, 2009 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[mtkaiser]

I certainly appreciate the passion in the responses to my post. I did not know how sore of a subject this was! My own personal views differ and do not wish to share them publicly (if you care/choose to know, you can send me a message).

What I like about objectivism is the emotional health it brings me. My definition of emotional health is "how close someone is to reality" ( I read that somewhere and I thought it to be a great definition). The other equally intriguing thing about objectivism is the belief in free will and every human's ablitly to the right to choose what they feel is right with in their own sets of values, as long as they are not infringing on the values of those around them.

I wanted to take back my post after reading it because of the word, that most of you painfully highlighted, "typical". Typical to who or to what? (to reference atlas shrugged).

I enjoyed reading most of your responses...

[softwareNerd]

... The other equally intriguing thing about objectivism is the belief in free will and every human's ablitly to the right to choose what they feel is right with in their own sets of values, as long as they are not infringing on the values of those around them.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Objectivism does say that certain things are immoral, even if they are chosen by free-will, and even if one has the right to do them.

[Greebo]

What makes you think the subject is a 'sore' one on the part of those of us who consider disbelieving in god on the same intellectual level as disbelieving that 1 = 7?

[mtkaiser]

What makes you think the subject is a 'sore' one on the part of those of us who consider disbelieving in god on the same intellectual level as disbelieving that 1 = 7?

I guess we would have to first define what we mean by "god". My definition is more along the lines of a higher power and creator. When I try to think through the potential existence of a creator, I try to work backwards. Let me give you an example. What is steel made of?? Well I'm sure lots of stuff that I do not know about but I could generalize with saying "stuff" or matter. Okay, now what is matter made of?? Well smaller "things", okay, lets call them atoms! Okay, what are atoms made of?? Even smaller things called protons/neutrons, and electrons. So on and so forth until there is no actual answer that we as humans know, which is where the blank out comes. By blanking out at that point, you are admitting that you've reached a point that you can not reason or you can not comprehend. The reason (no pun intended) is that there are certain things that are impossible for the brain to fully comprehend or define because the brain has never been able to experience it. Like the word infinite. If you think you know the definition of infinite, you are kidding yourself, unless you have experienced it.

So I'm not making a case for an almighty god that can come down and smite anyone he/she/it wishes. What I'm trying to say is that comparing believing in god to believing in 1=7 is an irrelevant argument because the brain can comprehend a simple math problem that we have all experienced, but unless someone has evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a creator, my brain will continue to fill that blank out with the role of a creator.

My last point that I will make is that things we take as fact and reality such as science and math, can also be compared to religion and faith. I know 2+2 = 4, wait, I have faith that 2 + 2= 4. I have been taught that by a preacher... wait, i mean my first grade math teacher and I took his word for it. I do not know about you but I have never talked to the guy/gal that created mathematics and asked him how math is supposed to work. What makes us human is the ability to pass on knowledge from one generation to another with a little bit of faith in giver of the knowledge.

p.s. As a newbie, I am truly enjoying this sharing of opinions with like minded individuals!

[softwareNerd]

...my brain will continue to fill that blank out with the role of a creator.

That's an arbitrary leap from the stuff you explained before this point. You can fill in whatever, but surely you cannot expect others to take your whimsical fill-in-the-blanks seriously, as if it were the next logical step. You are acting like an ancient tribal who heard thunder and thought Gods must be laughing.

What makes us human is the ability to pass on knowledge from one generation to another with a little bit of faith in giver of the knowledge.

Well, there are two problems here. Firstly, when we learn we do not take things "on faith". Believing someone's testimony is often not "faith". It depends on the reasons one has for thinking he is telling the truth, in particular the way his testimony integrates with the testimony of others and with the physical evidence. This is common equivocation among some religious folk, but using the same word for two different things does not make it the same. Secondly, when one relies on testimony, one is looking for the testimony about facts, not about conclusions. If we find an ancient inscription saying that the God laughed really hard that everyone heard his thunder, we might conclude that it is likely that the thunder was real (depending on what other evidence we have). However, it would be absurd to conclude that it was a God that was laughing.

[DavidOdden]

I guess we would have to first define what we mean by "god".

God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, who created everything that exists. Of course, such a being logically cannot exist.

So on and so forth until there is no actual answer that we as humans know, which is where the blank out comes.

This regress of reduction stops at one of two points. First, it must stop when you've actually reached the metaphysical basic elements. Two, it stops temporarily while you work on the technological problem of decomposition. Thus the decomposition of protons was stopped for a while. Neither requires blanking out.

The reason (no pun intended) is that there are certain things that are impossible for the brain to fully comprehend or define because the brain has never been able to experience it.

I assert that you could comprehend a yellow unicorn were you to see one, even though you have never seen one. In fact, 99% of what the brain encounters is experientially novel, and yet we muddle along perfectly well. In fact there is nothing that the brain cannot comprehend at least as long as the thing is real. The brain can't comprehend actualized infinity since it doesn't exist; although, the mind can comprehend an unbounded production method which would gnerate an infinite sequence.

If you think you know the definition of infinite, you are kidding yourself, unless you have experienced it.

You're kidding yourself. I understand infinite, and even countable versus uncountable infinity, even though I have never actually observed a countable infinity of anything.

My last point that I will make is that things we take as fact and reality such as science and math, can also be compared to religion and faith.

Not by a reasoning man.

I know 2+2 = 4, wait, I have faith that 2 + 2= 4. I have been taught that by a preacher... wait, i mean my first grade math teacher and I took his word for it.

Okay, I do accept that you may not have actually logically validated your scientific knowledge. As far as you're concerned, it might be just a myth that there are reindeer in the Arctic. But I've seen them and I can provide massive proof of their existence. There is not a shred of proof that god exists (of course not, because it's logically impossible).

I do not know about you but I have never talked to the guy/gal that created mathematics and asked him how math is supposed to work.

That is a problem in science education: I don't have any good solutions to that problem, except to try overcome that gap.

[mtkaiser]

I do not know how to do all those fancy quotes yet, So I will try to paraphrase.

First off, I have never expected anyone to accept my "whimsical fill-in-the-blanks seriously". It is how I think and how I feel. I sometimes feel like some posters on here look to attack or to make the originator of a message look stupid or wrong. Here's why I love objectivism. I believe it is rooted in ones belief in HIS OWN ability to reason and come to his own conclusions. I never expect someone to believe exactly what I believe. If that was the case, I would be an avid church patron (which choose not to be).

I enjoy sharing opinions with others but look at any type of debate, especially one about god, as a win/win, meaning you share your opinion, and I share mine, then hopefully, we each get a little closer to well, I guess a better conclusion or deduction from the facts. Trying to make someone feel wrong is not the way to encourage and embrace growth and thought.

O and the yellow unicorn comment - Its a horse with a horn that is yellow. We have seen a horse, a horn, and the color yellow. Can you comprehend or define a color that you have never seen?

I'm also interested in hearing out David about why god can logically not exist...

Edited January 21, 2009 by mtkaiser

[Jake_Ellison]

Trying to make someone feel wrong is not the way to encourage and embrace growth and thought.

I agree with one thing: trying to make someone feel stuff is not the way to help them grow (I assume you mean "grow in their knowledge") or think.

However, the only way to teach someone who is wrong is by making them understand that they are wrong, first.

So here are some things you are wrong about:

1. Telling people how you feel about subjects which require thinking, or in general relying on feelings in a debate about such subjects, is counter-productive. The only way you will find a common ground with people on this forum is by relying on things you know. (unless you're discussing our ol' friend Ludwig Van or someone of his ilk)

2. The word "faith" has two meanings: "accept without proof, through some type of mystical revelation" and "to have a rational expectation of". You are using them interchangeably, the first meaning when you speak of religion, the second when you speak of something that is likely to be true, based on evidence. The easiest way to avoid confusing the two meanings would be to replace the word, when you mean the second definition, with expectation. For instance, instead of "I have faith that my teacher, who's been proven right many times before, will continue to be right" you can say "I expect him to be right, based on previous performance".

What you cannot do is equivocate between the two meanings. They are very different concepts, the fact that they happen to have the same word designating them in one language, the one you happen to speak, is irrelevant.

3. "Infinity" is a man-made concept. As such, a man's brain had to comprehend it.

In general, it would be difficult to name something which the human brain cannot comprehend, precisely because human brains are the ones who made up all the names, and they had a specific meaning in mind when they did. They named that "thing" precisely because they comprehended it, but had no name for it. Even that blank you mentioned has a name: zero.

You might as well give up trying: if it's in the dictionary, it has a meaning someone managed to comprehend: that's why it made it in, and if it's not, because it is something like "asjdfncir", I can still comprehend it: it is a random sequence of letters.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[bluey]

Trying to make someone feel wrong is not the way to encourage and embrace growth and thought.

Pointing out how someone *is* wrong is a good way to encourage thought and growth. If you feel bad when someone notices that you're wrong ... then I guess you should try really hard to *be* right, instead of just focusing on *feeling* right.

I'm also interested in hearing out David about why god can logically not exist...

You said you define God as a creator. It's logically impossible for something which exists to have created existence. If he exists then existence exists, too, and he didn't create it. That's the reason in a nutshell.

[softwareNerd]

I enjoy sharing opinions with others but look at any type of debate, especially one about god, as a win/win, meaning you share your opinion, and I share mine, then hopefully, we each get a little closer to well, I guess a better conclusion or deduction from the facts. Trying to make someone feel wrong is not the way to encourage and embrace growth and thought.

What is "trying to make someone feel they're wrong"? What does it even mean? If you say the earth is flat, do you want people not to make you feel you're wrong? This is not about sharing something that came to one in a dream. Objective and absolute truth exists, regardless of anyone and everyones personal opinions. Opinions unrelated to reality are a waste of time.

[mtkaiser]

Jake - Thank you for pointing out the things that I was wrong about. You are someone who I KNOW I can learn a lot from, which is my purpose for joining this forum. I completely enjoy being wrong. I totally agree its the only way to learn.

I very much respect the response that Jake and bluey gave to my last post.

Edited January 21, 2009 by mtkaiser

[DavidOdden]

O and the yellow unicorn comment - Its a horse with a horn that is yellow. We have seen a horse, a horn, and the color yellow. Can you comprehend or define a color that you have never seen?

Of course: anything that exists but which you cannot directly perceive can be understood compositionally, like you suggest for a yellow unicorn. Nothing exists which the mind cannot comprehend.

[TomerS]

Since you're curious both about objectivism and about god, I would recommend that you pick up a copy of Leonard Peikoff's book: Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. (It is also available in audiobook format from audible.com if you have time to listen but not to read.)

You are right that the discussion of god goes back to the beginning, and you only have to read and understand chapter one of that book - entitled "Reality" - to get a full and indisputable case of the non-existence of god.

If you do keep reading though to chapter 5 on reason, you will see how god is an arbitrary and invalid concept.

Do not expect to fully accept and integrate the ideas all at once, but don't accept anything until you do understand it.