Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist's View on Religion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Obviously, objectivism doesn't support any belief of a higher being for lack of proof and for an hierarchy of values. Where I'm confused is why Ayn Rand was atheist, and not agnostic. I watched an interview on YouTube and when asked about a lack of conclusive evidence for atheism, she simply stated you don't need to prove a negative. Doesn't this go against the idea of reason? Shouldn't objectivism support agnosticism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously, objectivism doesn't support any belief of a higher being for lack of proof and for an hierarchy of values. Where I'm confused is why Ayn Rand was atheist, and not agnostic. I watched an interview on YouTube and when asked about a lack of conclusive evidence for atheism, she simply stated you don't need to prove a negative. Doesn't this go against the idea of reason? Shouldn't objectivism support agnosticism?

This isn't Ayn Rand but from Leonard Peikoff (her intellectual heir),

[There is] a widespread approach to ideas which Objectivism repudiates altogether: agnosticism. I mean this term in a sense which applies to the question of God, but to many other issues also, such as extra-sensory perception or the claim that the stars influence man’s destiny. In regard to all such claims, the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.”

The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it. Here are a few obvious ones: First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate—and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.” Third, the agnostic says, “Maybe these things will one day be proved.” In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.

The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.

Taken from: Ayn Rand Lexicon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been multiple topics on the subject. Here is one.

Your question lies in Objectivist epistemology, and it's views on the arbitrary and metaphysical hierarchy.

Ultimately, consciousness cannot exist without material reality. The notion of God as the prime mover of physical existence is therefore an invalid one on it's base. We don't even have to point out the inanity of infinite regression here.

And Objecitivists don't spend too much time trying to disprove God, because there is nothing to disprove. It's an arbitrary idea, advocated by some of the most intellectually lazy or dishonest people of our day. This is not a judgement upon other deists and even theists of the past, but nowadays you would have to be lying to yourself or stupid to consider the possibility of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't Ayn Rand but from Leonard Peikoff (her intellectual heir),

Taken from: Ayn Rand Lexicon

As of now, I am agnostic, because I don't think we can prove anything either way. I don't feel like these words properly fit agnosticism, at least in my case. Because I believe we can't know anything regarding any supernatural or higher beings, I don't bother to give the subject any significant consideration. An agnostic could consider arbitrary claims, but that doesn't mean they do, so what makes atheism any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, I am agnostic, because I don't think we can prove anything either way. I don't feel like these words properly fit agnosticism, at least in my case. Because I believe we can't know anything regarding any supernatural or higher beings, I don't bother to give the subject any significant consideration. An agnostic could consider arbitrary claims, but that doesn't mean they do, so what makes atheism any better?

What is it you think you CAN prove? In your universe, I suppose you can't disprove that there are floating invisible unicorns either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, I am agnostic, because I don't think we can prove anything either way. I don't feel like these words properly fit agnosticism, at least in my case. Because I believe we can't know anything regarding any supernatural or higher beings, I don't bother to give the subject any significant consideration. An agnostic could consider arbitrary claims, but that doesn't mean they do, so what makes atheism any better?

There are a few reasons why Objectivists are not agnostic;

From an etymological standpoint, the word "atheist" simply means "without theism"- without a belief in God. It's a negative belief system- not a positive one. You don't have to prove anything in order to be properly classified as an "atheist." In fact, you don't even have to know of the concept of God. An atheist merely lacks theism, which is a positive belief. There is no middle-ground between theism and atheism. A person cannot be agnostic without also being either a theist or an athiest. If you are having a problem grasping this then I can point you to a thread in which I explained it in more detail.

Since theism is necessarily a positive belief (an assertion of the truth), it carries the onus of proof. The atheist is not in the position to prove anything, since he is not the one making the positive claim. The fact that theists cannot prove God's existence does not mean that the issue is up in the air, and we should all conclude that we cannot know the answer. If something is said to exist, but there is no evidence of its existence, on what basis should we hold that it is even a possibility?

The claim that God exists is almost always made arbitrarily, and therefore cannot even be discussed. There is nothing to debate. The theists' argument is full of conclusions with no premises. Dr. Peikoff refutes the agnostic position of "I don't know" by asking, "What don't you know?" What evidence exists in support of God's existence which you are unaware of or ignoring? An arbitrarily assertion of the truth has no ties to reality, and therefore should not be accepted as being true.

(Taken from here)

What makes you think there is a possibility rather than god simply being non-existent?

There is no proper factual reason based in reality to think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Taken from here)

What makes you think there is a possibility rather than god simply being non-existent?

There is no proper factual reason based in reality to think so.

I'll respond to your question with another question. What makes you jump to the conclusion of there not being a god rather than accept that it's an unknowable subject?

Invisible flying unicorns that don't affect anything around them could very well exist, but that doesn't mean I give the subject any thought. Basically, I just recognize that some things are unknowable. It's for the reason that they unknowable that I don't give them any thought. If it doesn't interfere with objective ideas, I don't see why agnostism isn't approved of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to your question with another question. What makes you jump to the conclusion of there not being a god rather than accept that it's an unknowable subject?

Pretty much every description of a 'higher' being I've ever heard of defies known laws of physics. That offers evidence against the existence of such a being whereas I have yet to see a scrap of evidence to support the existence of a higher being. It's not conclusion jumping, it's looking at the existing evidence and seeing reasons why such a being is not possible. As has been said, the assertion of a 'god' is arbitrary.

The Egoist pointed to multiple threads you can read through to see various arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As RationalBiker points out, the descriptions of "god" that I've seen are incoherent and non-concepts. I am not agnostic about the existence of square circles. Likewise I am not about the omniscient, the omnipotent, or any other definition of "god" that I have seen. If you would like to present a definition that isn't founded on nonsense (literally), go for it. Of course, it would have to consist of concepts with known examples in reality to which we can easily refer.

At least a unicorn is coherent to some extent - I know what I horse is, and I know what horns look like, so I can imagine the two combined. "God" doesn't even get that far.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invisible flying unicorns that don't affect anything around them could very well exist,

No they can't. To have some sort of identity is to have some sort of causal effect. Something isolated from causality is a contradiciton in terms. This ist he basic argument against God. Omnipotence, omniscience are non-identity, non-causality.

There is no "evidence" that will ever be presented that violates these axioms. Evidence presupposes identity and casuality.

Everything that has identity, causality, etc is "knowable."

When I suggest that it is "possible" that there are undiscovered moons around Pluto, I am integrating within known knowledge, and according to the basic axioms. When you hypothesize a "God" (as anyone who reasonably defines it) you are not doing anything of the sort.

You're making stuff up. Your "unknowability" really means that something is non-axiomatic. You're saying that it is possible that somehting exists that violates everything you know. There is no integration there with anything that is known. It is completely arbitrary. When you discuss it with anyone, you must allow for any arbitrary option, including the fact that we are really yellow mushrooms, that teapots circle mars. I realize that you don't think of it, but your method would actually require for you to state that in the category of "unknowable" is every other identity violating option you could come up with. To give any unknowable thing consideration you really need to give every unknowable thing since unknowability is really another way for you to say arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand said often in interviews that the burden of proof was on the asserter of such ideas. If it cannot be objectively, rationally proven with real evidence, then it does not exist. This is also known as the axiom of existence, "Existence is identity" (part of the Objectivist viewpoint on objective reality). It is easy to see how this would contradict the existence of such a creature. If reasonable evidence is shown to back up such a claim of a mystical tyrant existing throughout the universe, then I suppose this would make the case otherwise. Also take note of a principle followed by Objectivists, which Aristotle is responsible for:

A is A

For these reasons, Ayn Rand was certain that a god doesn't exist.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To come in from another angle, JUtley, please consider carefully this quote- " If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent Him ".

This strikes right at the core of the issue.

A relatively short time ago, Man lived in ignorance of his world. He felt alone and afraid. He coudn't understand the Sun, so he automatically worshipped it. Then the same went for trees, rocks, the sea, fire etc. This evolved into an invisible 'being', with a paternalistic, authoritarian nature.

The question isn't "Is there a God?". It is 'why did we ever need one ? '

That's easy to understand; it was a result of everything around those early men being mysterious and unpredictable. People had a psychological need to feel safe and part of some grand plan. Life was arduous, so they built up rituals to ask their gods for help. To forestall ' punishment ', they practised sacrifice. Damn, I would definitely be a deist myself in those days.

Just look how tempting it was (and is) to believe that there is some plan for us in all this apparent meaninglessness: that we are not alone in the vastness of space, that that most terrifying concept of all, death, is not the end. We just end up in a better place.

Wishful thinking, fear, and lack of knowledge got us to deism.

But we know ourselves and the universe immensely better now. Reason and Reality, once learned, cannot be unlearned.

Any justification for believing in God and religion is now null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand said often in interviews that the burden of proof was on the asserter of such ideas. If it cannot be objectively, rationally proven with real evidence, then it does not exist. This is also known as the axiom of existence, "Existence is identity" (part of the Objectivist viewpoint on objective reality). It is easy to see how this would contradict the existence of such a creature. If reasonable evidence is shown to back up such a claim of a mystical tyrant existing throughout the universe, then I suppose this would make the case otherwise. Also take note of a principle followed by Objectivists, which Aristotle is responsible for:

A is A

For these reasons, Ayn Rand was certain that a god doesn't exist.

Why is the non-Objectivist continually answering questions on "Objectivism's view of ...." Other than a really poor and muddled explanation for a religionist, how does this answer the agnostic? Sentence 2 and 4 are directly contradictory. You're really done a hackjob explaining this one. Sentence 4 is the agnostic's position almost word for word. You've accepted it.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the non-Objectivist continually answering questions on "Objectivism's view of ...." Other than a really poor and muddled explanation for a religionist, how does this answer the agnostic? Sentence 2 and 4 are directly contradictory. You're really done a hackjob explaining this one. Sentence 4 is the agnostic's position almost word for word. You've accepted it.

My response, to all of this is that there are possible dimensions of space and time that we are incapable of understanding or seeing into. God could exist in these dimensions, we wouldn't be able to tell. I simply acknowledge the possibility of this. Ayn Rand may think she could prove the lack of a God, but she can't do anything more than man is capable of. The laws of physics don't necessarily apply in these dimensions.

I don't think these ideas should change the way we live life. Perhaps we are omniscient. The only point I want to make is that I don't think we should make conclusions about something we don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only point I want to make is that I don't think we should make conclusions about something we don't know.
In the course of making that point, you have essentially abandoned reason. Your position reduces to the claim that man cannot have knowledge, and that reason produces nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response, to all of this is that there are possible dimensions of space and time that we are incapable of understanding or seeing into. God could exist in these dimensions, we wouldn't be able to tell. I simply acknowledge the possibility of this. Ayn Rand may think she could prove the lack of a God, but she can't do anything more than man is capable of. The laws of physics don't necessarily apply in these dimensions.

I don't think these ideas should change the way we live life. Perhaps we are omniscient. The only point I want to make is that I don't think we should make conclusions about something we don't know.

But you are making a conclusion about something.

"There are possible..."

To be possible means something. To conclude this, you need some sort of reason. What reason do you have to even claim possibility about something that for which there is no basis? I speak here not just of "other dimensions" but dimensions where the laws of physics don't apply. Identity is not a "law of physics." The laws of physics presuppose identity. So I am going to assume that you mean something for which identity doesn't' apply. That's part of the problem. To state that something is possible means you have to integrate into your established knowledge. You know nothing today which would allow you to state that such a thing is possible.

To claim that for the singular reason that I cannot know something in any way that it is possible is the mistake that the agnostic makes. It cannot be a reason to assert that the arbitrary is possible. It remains the arbitrary. The arbitray vs. the possible, and also what exactly it means to be axiomatic are some of the misconceptions that prevent the resolution of this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a god is just as ridiculous as the idea of a magical invisible unicorn, the only difference is, generations of people have deluded themselves toward the existence of a god, and not a magical invisible unicorn, so we should all accept that the idea of a 'god' is possible simply because a lot of people from the past thought he was real so it must be true?

No. There's no Yaweh, there's no Thoth, or Isis, there's no Thor, the only gods that exist are men, and they are only gods by achievement, not by divinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response, to all of this is that there are possible dimensions of space and time that we are incapable of understanding or seeing into. God could exist in these dimensions, we wouldn't be able to tell. I simply acknowledge the possibility of this. Ayn Rand may think she could prove the lack of a God, but she can't do anything more than man is capable of. The laws of physics don't necessarily apply in these dimensions.

I don't think these ideas should change the way we live life. Perhaps we are omniscient. The only point I want to make is that I don't think we should make conclusions about something we don't know.

Then you cannot make any conclusions concerning anything. I *know* that God doesn't exist the same way I *know* that gravity does exist. Now theoretically there could be some force in the universe which would hit Earth in 5 minutes which would destroy gravity and we'd all go flying into space. Of course there's no reason to believe this. I have no knowledge or evidence of "mystery force X" and it would be insane to try to understand it.

If one says that God's existence is unknowable then why not gravity? How do you know for sure that it will exist tomorrow as mystery force X may exisit? Do we really know anything then? To debate and deal with these concepts is futile, pointless, and attacks the very nature of knowledge. How would an agnostic, in ANY way, act any differently than an atheist, unless they are considering something as insane as Pascal's wager?

When you have no proof of something and can no nothing of its (supposed?) nature, how can a proper concept be formed? Now, just because I am an atheist that doesn't mean if a Christian/polytheist/Viking god appeared tomorrow providing proof of its existence that I would put my fingers in my ears and run away. In view of new information I could change my beliefs. Yet, that fanciful possibility does not change one bit my confidence in my beliefs right now as I put value in knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you cannot make any conclusions concerning anything. I *know* that God doesn't exist the same way I *know* that gravity does exist. Now theoretically there could be some force in the universe which would hit Earth in 5 minutes which would destroy gravity and we'd all go flying into space. Of course there's no reason to believe this. I have no knowledge or evidence of "mystery force X" and it would be insane to try to understand it.

If one says that God's existence is unknowable then why not gravity? How do you know for sure that it will exist tomorrow as mystery force X may exisit? Do we really know anything then? To debate and deal with these concepts is futile, pointless, and attacks the very nature of knowledge. How would an agnostic, in ANY way, act any differently than an atheist, unless they are considering something as insane as Pascal's wager?

When you have no proof of something and can no nothing of its (supposed?) nature, how can a proper concept be formed? Now, just because I am an atheist that doesn't mean if a Christian/polytheist/Viking god appeared tomorrow providing proof of its existence that I would put my fingers in my ears and run away. In view of new information I could change my beliefs. Yet, that fanciful possibility does not change one bit my confidence in my beliefs right now as I put value in knowledge.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. An agnostic won't act differently than an atheist unless they are stupid enough to try to consider mystery force X and every other possibility and/or believe in it. What I should be asking is does agnosticism really interfere with objectivist principals? My beliefs are atheist by the definition of not believing in a higher power. I simply acknowledge that we are not omniscient, and we don't have any proof of regarding anything outside man's physical capabilities. Therefore, we should act on what we do know, and this is where reason takes over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I should be asking is does agnosticism really interfere with objectivist principals?
I take it that you don't know anything about Objectivism. Well, we can reduce the question to a simple question -- what don't you know? What evidence have you failed to study or been unable to clarify? What is the basis to believe that there is anything to learn on this subject?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to your question with another question. What makes you jump to the conclusion of there not being a god rather than accept that it's an unknowable subject?

It absolutely is a knowable subject. I know for a fact that someone made the concept of God up. So it's not real.

My response, to all of this is that there are possible dimensions of space and time that we are incapable of understanding or seeing into.

This one, you made up yourself. The proof of that is in your claim: it can't be seen into-so you did not see into it, you made it up. Might as well admit it.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. An agnostic won't act differently than an atheist unless they are stupid enough to try to consider mystery force X and every other possibility and/or believe in it. What I should be asking is does agnosticism really interfere with objectivist principals? My beliefs are atheist by the definition of not believing in a higher power. I simply acknowledge that we are not omniscient, and we don't have any proof of regarding anything outside man's physical capabilities.

You do more than that. Objectivism doesn't claim that we are omniscient. But you take things people made up and you are claiming that they could be real. How could they be real? They are imaginary.

Is there a God? No.

Are there dimensions that cannot be known? No.

Why? Because the definition of nothingness is that it has no traces or effects. Everything that exists, has to have some trace(and thus be knowable to some advanced cosciousness) , otherwise it doesn't exist.

What could you possibly mean by "an unknowable thing that exists but leaves no traces, and has no effect on knowable things that exist"? Where and when could that thing possibly exist?--(this is not a rhetorical question)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It absolutely is a knowable subject. I know for a fact that someone made the concept of God up. So it's not real.

This one, you made up yourself. The proof of that is in your claim: it can't be seen into-so you did not see into it, you made it up. Might as well admit it.

You do more than that. Objectivism doesn't claim that we are omniscient. But you take things people made up and you are claiming that they could be real. How could they be real? They are imaginary.

Is there a God? No.

Are there dimensions that cannot be known? No.

Why? Because the definition of nothingness is that it has no traces or effects. Everything that exists, has to have some trace(and thus be knowable to some advanced cosciousness) , otherwise it doesn't exist.

What could you possibly mean by "an unknowable thing that exists but leaves no traces, and has no effect on knowable things that exist"? Where and when could that thing possibly exist?--(this is not a rhetorical question)

Just because there is no trace we can see, doesn't mean there isn't a trace. Another life form from some other far off galaxy may be able to see it. Man is only capable of so much.

This is what makes me think this way: When we die, something must happen. We don't see anything happening though. Not seeing it isn't proving it's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what makes me think this way: When we die, something must happen. We don't see anything happening though. Not seeing it isn't proving it's not happening.

What happens is that you cease to be a human, you become a corpse. There's no reason to think otherwise given knowledge we have discovered about reality the past 5,000 years. Remember that when people say god, they mean an omniscient and omnipotent being that created the universe. A zeus-like being could theoretically exist somewhere in the universe, but Zeus as imagined by the Greeks wasn't omniscient, wasn't omnipotent and didn't create the universe.

Also, you can't say that an unknowable (as in, you don't know the existence of) could exist but leave no traces. It would only be accurate to say there are no traces that are detectable by your current means. But that does not mean an omnipotent and omniscient being who created the universe could exist.

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...