Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist's View on Religion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't believe we can know anything about the supernatural, so I don't claim that none of it exists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural

supernatural (adj.)

c.1450 (implied in supernaturally), "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense; association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799. The noun is attested from 1587.

The reason you can't know anything about the supernatural is because it is "above" nature, or in other words, "above" reality. There are other meanings of supernatural, but you're using it in the way mentioned above. To say the supernatural exists is to say there is something "above" reality. You'd be saying both reality and non-reality exists, and that is a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, the whole your mind is not your mind thing isn't a contradiction.

Uh, yes, it is. Let me put it to you in a different way: A is not A.

And to Juttles stop wasting our time ignoring everything posted and contradicting yourself. If you want to waste time fantasizing about mystical creatures and claiming they exists because you think contradictory logic and belief is knowledge that is fine but it's fairly annoying to blank your mind out and not make an effort to think.

Hear, hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to Juttles stop wasting our time ignoring everything posted and contradicting yourself. If you want to waste time fantasizing about mystical creatures and claiming they exists because you think contradictory logic and belief is knowledge that is fine but it's fairly annoying to blank your mind out and not make an effort to think.

I'd actually like to disagree with you and Jeff. It may be true that Jutley is ignoring the disucsison and contradicting himself. However, the only person responsible for having his time wasted and being annoyed is you. This is just a bit of psychologizing on your part. Anyone who is continuing to argue with Jutley after his demonstrated methodology in this thread, well, you certainly can't say you didn't know what would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually like to disagree with you and Jeff. It may be true that Jutley is ignoring the disucsison and contradicting himself. However, the only person responsible for having his time wasted and being annoyed is you.

Fountainhead777 did write "if you want to waste time," not "if you want to waste our, or my time." Speaking for myself, I know exactly who's responsible for my time. Even if I didn't know who was responsible for my own time, your little chastisement would still be psychologizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, is it just me or do I read "... stop wasting our time..." in the quote above. The one that you quoted and agreed with as well. It's when one chooses to deal with something that is not explicitly stated that one is psychologizing. As in the implication that the poster is evading or "blanking out" his mind.

If that's not what you intended to agree with, then choose your quotes more carefully.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, is it just me or do I read "... stop wasting our time..." in the quote above. The one that you quoted and agreed with as well. It's when one chooses to deal with something that is not explicitly stated that one is psychologizing. As in the implication that the poster is evading or "blanking out" his mind.

If that's not what you intended to agree with, then choose your quotes more carefully.

You're absolutely right. I'll extend the care I take in posting a reply on the actual thread topic to quoting exactly what I intend on replying to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jutley you invent definitions and then claim them to be valid. God is predefined as the undefined and unknowable since Gods are supernatural, not what your whim decides.

Kendall you are right I am responsible for my time and I do know this. People such as Jutley who blank their mind out and get indignant and righteous like they know their right, in this case about not being able to be right or wrong, make me angry because its sheer, blind ignorance. His view is so absurd that all Gods could be disproven and his claim could still be made because it is based in unknowable, fairy-tale land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you guys are attempting to prove your point through definitions, and after I tried this, you said this wasn't valid proof. So aren't you contradicting yourselves?

I was only pointing out why the supernatural cannot be understood; because it's "above" reality. If something is above reality, it is contrary to reality. I brought up the word origin to tell you exactly how I interpreted your meaning of supernatural (the definition fit exactly your usage). Do you understand the contradiction I pointed out? Essentially, you're asking "How do I know reality exists?"

Forget the word god. Don't ask "does god exist?" Ask "does reality exist?" When asking if reality exists, there is proof of it existing. When asking if god exists, there is no proof of it existing, but that isn't enough to say something doesn't exist. By putting those two questions side by side, everything should be clear if you understand the contradiction I pointed out.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jutley you invent definitions and then claim them to be valid. God is predefined as the undefined and unknowable since Gods are supernatural, not what your whim decides.

Kendall you are right I am responsible for my time and I do know this. People such as Jutley who blank their mind out and get indignant and righteous like they know their right, in this case about not being able to be right or wrong, make me angry because its sheer, blind ignorance. His view is so absurd that all Gods could be disproven and his claim could still be made because it is based in unknowable, fairy-tale land.

My definition was God is a supernatural being. Making up definitions? I think not.

I never said Gods could be disproven. I'm saying that an atheist says it's a fact anything supernatural doesn't exist. Wouldn't an atheist claiming the supernatural cannot be disproven be a contradiction?

Also, I am definitely coming off the wrong way. I'll admit, everyone here has certainly done their part in proving their point, and I am much more leaning towards the idea of atheism than when I started this thread. I'm just playing devil's advocate, because I'm still not entirely convinced that atheism fits objectivism. If anyone considers this a waste of their time, no one is forcing you to debate with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing we are all trying to hammer home is that the supernatural cannot exist. If it did exist and exist integrated with reality it would no longer be supernatural. So by being able to observe it and know it exists it would have to cease being supernatural. If we found a God he could not be a God he would just be a more dynamic life form, probably an alien. But as long as reality is defined the life form would have boundaries and rules.

Basically by the laws of nature the supernatural cannot exist or be perceived because the term and everything labeled by it is a contradiction. It can either be extraordinary and natural or not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing we are all trying to hammer home is that the supernatural cannot exist. If it did exist and exist integrated with reality it would no longer be supernatural. So by being able to observe it and know it exists it would have to cease being supernatural. If we found a God he could not be a God he would just be a more dynamic life form, probably an alien. But as long as reality is defined the life form would have boundaries and rules.

Basically by the laws of nature the supernatural cannot exist or be perceived because the term and everything labeled by it is a contradiction. It can either be extraordinary and natural or not exist.

Didn't you just say this isn't an option. I'm a bit confused.

The reason I feel objectivism and agnosticism are compatible with each other is because agnosticism cannot allow one to draw any conclusions about the supernatural, and this would force an agnostic to act according to reason in reality. I don't think this idea has been proven flawed in this thread. Or maybe I just completely missed it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I'm coming off as ignorant, forgive me, I'm honestly just trying to fully understand this. Everything else I've questioned about objectivism has been answered in ways that do make complete sense. This is the only case breaking that pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant extraordinary as in unusual but still existing in reality. We could find an alien lifeform that would seem god-like but since it is existing in reality it is still natural just highly extraordinary. This would be like many things claimed to be supernatural, just contradictions exploded by rationality and reason or reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant extraordinary as in unusual but still existing in reality. We could find an alien lifeform that would seem god-like but since it is existing in reality it is still natural just highly extraordinary. This would be like many things claimed to be supernatural, just contradictions exploded by rationality and reason or reality.

The only thing left I could think of saying is whether or not a heaven could exist. There's no way of being able to prove that wrong, is there? It all comes down to faith, or a lack of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof for it because once again it is supernatural. Dead things do not in any known circumstances continue living. Also what would continue living? the body and mind are buried and dead.

But then again why focus on death so much. The goal of life is life so live for your time on earth not some hypothetical world that may or may not exist. Honestly heaven just seems like a comfort to those afraid of death or who are not satisfied with their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof for it because once again it is supernatural. Dead things do not in any known circumstances continue living. Also what would continue living? the body and mind are buried and dead.

But then again why focus on death so much. The goal of life is life so live for your time on earth not some hypothetical world that may or may not exist. Honestly heaven just seems like a comfort to those afraid of death or who are not satisfied with their lives.

Well, honestly, I am afraid of death. I don't see why this would be a bad thing though. Shouldn't it be to anyone who's ultimate goal is to live?

But more on topic, would a belief in heaven contradict objectivist ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUtley93,

Rather than focus on God, you should ask yourself why we use a term like "possible".

There's no proof for it either. That's why I just don't have any opinion when it comes to supernatural stuff.
Observation is the starting point for all knowledge. We might not observe an entity directly, but we might observe its effect on something. Maybe there is a long chain of cause and effect that we can trace back, and yet there is an observation at one end of it all.

Sometimes, we are not certain about things. We might have some evidence, but not an overwhelming amount. That's when we talk about things being "possible" or even "probable" -- rather than being certain. When we speak of something being "possible", we indicate that there is a certain amount of evidence (observation and deductions therefrom) in favor of our hypothesis.

Otherwise, possible becomes a meaningless term because everything is possible.The way you're using the term, it makes no sense to ask if god is possible, because anything is possible in those terms. Could Harry Potter actually exist? Is it possible? Of course, if we use the term "possible' the way you suggest, we would have to say that those books might be real events that took place to real people, in some way that is beyond our comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you guys are attempting to prove your point through definitions, and after I tried this, you said this wasn't valid proof. So aren't you contradicting yourselves?

Specifically, which guys, and which definitions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition was God is a supernatural being.

I should have challenged this to begin with. How have you derived that as an objectively proper definition? Since we like to play devil's advocate (and cast aside that which is known), how do you know that if there was a God that he would necessarily be a supernatural being? Why could he not be a natural being whose existence is not yet detected?

The problem with any definition of "God" is that the concept "God" is not definable. There is no starting point of knowledge with which to start a definition that has any substance. So it's not just that you made up the definition, any definition you find in any dictionary is also going to be a "made up" definition. There is no legitimate definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, which guys, and which definitions?

It was one specific person I think, however, I'm grouping you all into one group of objectivists. Probably a mistake.

And the definition I gave was God is a supernatural being. I can't remember what the other definition was.

However, all this is irrelevant at this point. If you want to look within the last few pages it should be pretty obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She said in Atlas Shrugged that to take the middle of the road is the most evil stance to take, yet the people who do so usually do so from the most humble and innocent of motives: mediation.

But I see now exactly why agnosticism is a fallacy, and an insult to man's reason. Entering this topic, I held a very agnostic attitude. I wrote this in another forum (It is a bit lengthy, bear with me):

"I am without religion. I say "without religion" because I draw a very distinct line between myself and Atheism.

I am not an Atheist, just as I am not a Christian. At the risk of offending some Atheists on the forum (which is a risk that is unavoidable in religious discussion), I consider Atheism just as assumptuous as any other religion.

An atheist claims passionately that there is no God.

A Christian (as well as a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindi) claims just as passionately, just as fervently, that there is a God.

Both groups are polar opposites on the same incorrect spectrum.

Both commit the same original error, the error of assumption. Or, as the religious like to call it, faith.

The facts presented to us as a species, through years of scientific and rational progress, have yet to reveal to us an answer to the question of God's existence. Religious people seem obssessed with having the answer to this question, and so they forego the logical method of discovery, and assume or invent the answers they seek. These answers are, of course, baseless, and so the religious defend them with faith.

Here, the Atheists have switched up the method. Instead of using faith as their defense, they use science. They claim that since science hasn't proven God's existence, God doesn't exist. That's like a man from the Middle Ages claiming that since science hasn't discovered electricity, electricity doesn't exist. Science is not omnipotent. It is a linear creature, that gains knowledge and gains momentum as time progresses. Who's to know what science will discover in the future?

I am a firm believer in rationality. Rationality is accomplished through the application of the scientific method. The scientific method has yet to answer the question of God. Will it? Maybe. Can it? I believe it can. But it hasn't yet. And so I take pride in saying that I don't know if there is or isn't a God. I don't need scriptures or faith to back my opinion up. I have rationality as my ace in the hole. "

I am ashamed of claiming firm belief in rationality and firm belief in uncertainty in the same post. This discussion has definitively changed me from a misinformed agnostic to a certain atheist. Thanks guys.

The forum I posted the above excerpt in was devoted to the discussion of zombie survival, so it's no wonder that no one came to oppose my view. =D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

You at least seemed to hold the belief that science might find out someday. That's a "softer" variant of agnosticism than the "we cannot know, even in principle" that many agnostics seem to hold to.

Either way, welcome to the ranks of the 7.0 atheists. (I get that from Richard Dawkins who draws a 1-7 scale, 1 being certain that God exists, 7 being certain he does not. For all the thundering from the Religious Right about him and the other new atheists, he puts himself at 6 for reasons similar to the ones you used to hold to.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You at least seemed to hold the belief that science might find out someday. That's a "softer" variant of agnosticism than the "we cannot know, even in principle" that many agnostics seem to hold to.

Either way, welcome to the ranks of the 7.0 atheists. (I get that from Richard Dawkins who draws a 1-7 scale, 1 being certain that God exists, 7 being certain he does not. For all the thundering from the Religious Right about him and the other new atheists, he puts himself at 6 for reasons similar to the ones you used to hold to.)

I would probably put myself at around a 5.5 or 6 at this point. We'll see what happens.

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...