Objectivist's View on Religion

[Howard Roark]

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

We'll see what happens with what?

[Zip]

7.0 here.

If after 10,000 years of humanity there is still not a single shred of evidence, well in the words of Jamie and Adam... "This myth is busted."

[JUtley93]

We'll see what happens with what?

Where I rank myself later on, when I've read more objectivism.

[slacker00]

Could the concept of God fit within the Objectivist concept of method?

I know there's a ton of stuff that fits this category according to concept of method ITOE p 46.

I'll speak about the mathematics field regarding concept of method because that's my field of professional specialty. Math is mostly conceptual methods which only abstractly relate to material reality, if at all. In fact some mathematical concepts directly contradict other very basic mathematical concepts. The basic example is the imaginary number i, which is defined as the square root of -1. You can't multiply a number by itself and get -1, try it. But the concept of the imaginary number i is the basis for a large branch of mathematics which has many applications in technology. In fact, when I post this message, this "imaginary" concept has played a role in you getting this message.

Might we say the same about "God"? Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.

[KurtColville]

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.

Why be ashamed? You can't beat yourself up for not concluding something for which you did not have the requisite knowledge. Addressing atheism vs. agnosticism requires a fairly advanced understanding of epistemology, and specifically, of the valid bases for forming conclusions. You live in a culture that has almost no clue about this, and is increasingly contemptuous of it, preferring rampant, bullying skepticism.

You have essentially no intellectual support from the society you live in, so you're faced with having to figure this out from the ground up, and yet you did something that utterly dwarfs any blame you might wish to accept for ever being agnostic: you considered that agnosticism might be wrong, you recognized that the question was worth solving, you correctly identified a good place to go to solve it, and most importantly, you were honest with yourself and reality in solving it. Give yourself a pat on the back -- you deserve it.

[Greebo]

Why be ashamed? You can't beat yourself up for not concluding something for which you did not have the requisite knowledge. Addressing atheism vs. agnosticism requires a fairly advanced understanding of epistemology, and specifically, of the valid bases for forming conclusions. You live in a culture that has almost no clue about this, and is increasingly contemptuous of it, preferring rampant, bullying skepticism.

You have essentially no intellectual support from the society you live in, so you're faced with having to figure this out from the ground up, and yet you did something that utterly dwarfs any blame you might wish to accept for ever being agnostic: you considered that agnosticism might be wrong, you recognized that the question was worth solving, you correctly identified a good place to go to solve it, and most importantly, you were honest with yourself and reality in solving it. Give yourself a pat on the back -- you deserve it.

Amen to that, Brother.

Irony intended.

[JeffS]

I'll speak about the mathematics field regarding concept of method because that's my field of professional specialty. Math is mostly conceptual methods which only abstractly relate to material reality, if at all. In fact some mathematical concepts directly contradict other very basic mathematical concepts. The basic example is the imaginary number i, which is defined as the square root of -1. You can't multiply a number by itself and get -1, try it. But the concept of the imaginary number i is the basis for a large branch of mathematics which has many applications in technology. In fact, when I post this message, this "imaginary" concept has played a role in you getting this message.

Might we say the same about "God"? Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.

Well, sure, but so has the Sun, the wind, the rain, and the Earth. Pagans have a closer grasp on reality than current mainstream religions - at least their gods have referents in reality. Moreover, their religion enjoyed a far longer run than religions of today; lasting for 10's of thousands of years.

From a historical perspective, understanding the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is important, but that's about it.

[slacker00]

Well, sure, but so has the Sun, the wind, the rain, and the Earth. Pagans have a closer grasp on reality than current mainstream religions - at least their gods have referents in reality. Moreover, their religion enjoyed a far longer run than religions of today; lasting for 10's of thousands of years.

From a historical perspective, understanding the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is important, but that's about it.

You're rejecting my claim that God and religion influences modern politics and law, not to mention culture in general? God isn't dead by a long shot in many people's eyes. I think it's worth acknowledging this imaginary God as relevant in concepts of method regarding how to deal with specific elements of reality, namely society in general as well as politics, law, and history in specific. It'd be nice to dismiss this imaginary God, but that would be rejecting that part of reality which is tightly woven into my daily live and the lives of the rest of you too, if you just open your eyes and see it for what it is and deal with it rationally.

[fountainhead777]

The actual existence of God is fictional and in conflict with the existence of reality. What you speak of is understanding of God as it is a psychological affliction, know how it affects the minds of others, their values, and their treatment of yourself. The symptoms of religious faith are akin to a psychological disorder: dissociation from reality, hearing voices, refusal of reason, etc. Understanding how a myth such as this effects psychology I think is admissible, but considering the myth of God as anything other than fictional is intellectually cowardly.

[Jake_Ellison]

The basic example is the imaginary number i, which is defined as the square root of -1. You can't multiply a number by itself and get -1, try it.

Sure you can, silly: i*i=-1.

i is no more and no less imaginary than any other number, as evidenced by your next sentences:

But the concept of the imaginary number i is the basis for a large branch of mathematics which has many applications in technology. In fact, when I post this message, this "imaginary" concept has played a role in you getting this message.

All math is "imaginary", in the sense that it is abstract, not concrete. However, "God" is claimed to be real and concrete. It is claimed to do things, in fact it is claimed that He created Heaven and Earth. No mathematician has ever claimed that numbers literally talk to him, or that they came down from Heaven and performed miracles.

The (mathematically valid) claims mathematicians make about numbers are all true, and the claims theologians make about God are all false, in reality. In that sense numbers (including i, which as you correctly said has plenty of a logical relationship to reality) are real, and God is false.

So remember, no mathematician is claiming that math is real real, only that it has a logical relationship to reality. Not so with God, at least not in a sense other than Chris describes, in the previous post, of a false belief some people hold, and choose to act upon. But any such actions are caused by people (who have free will), not by God.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[JeffS]

What Chris and Jake said.

[softwareNerd]

It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.

God is not the force affecting the world, the belief in God is. It is absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge that real, living, breathing people have such a belief, and that it affects the world. The term typically used is "religion"; but, if that implies organization, one can use the term "theism". Edited July 1, 2009 by softwareNerd

[slacker00]

God is not the force affecting the world, the belief in God is. It is absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge that real, living, breathing people have such a belief, and that it affects the world. The term typically used is "religion"; but, if that implies organization, one can use the term "theism".

It's more accurate to use the terms that they use. Simply invoke a liberal use of the word imaginary as a prefix for key concepts, such as God.

Otherwise I think we are all in agreement. God is as real as complex math or any other similar theoretical field of study. It's just an imaginary abstraction which can provide unique insight, despite the fact that it is a logical contradiction to the basic axioms of reality. God isn't real in an axiomatic sense, but certainly has applications with respect to methodology.

Edited July 1, 2009 by slacker00

[softwareNerd]

...but certainly has applications with respect to methodology.

No, it doesn't. You're mistaken.

[slacker00]

No, it doesn't. You're mistaken.

Please explain.

[softwareNerd]

Please explain.

Nope, the onus is yours.

[softwareNerd]

Please explain.

Nope, the onus is yours.

[slacker00]

Nope, the onus is yours.

First of all, you are the one making a claim. Defend your claim.

Second of all, I made my claim and I am defending my claim. When one tells me "You are wrong.", I say "ok, explain WTF are you saying.". Then the guy walks away all smug and say, "You lose, the onus is on you.". Wonderful discussion.

[slacker00]

Nope, the onus is yours.

So, basically, the onus is on me to explain your objection to myself. I just want be clear. You want me to read your mind.

[softwareNerd]

First of all, you are the one making a claim. Defend your claim.

You're making a claim that the imaginary concept of God can be useful for methodological reasons.

One argument you've offered is that some other, unrelated imaginary concepts are useful for methodological reasons. However, that argument has no bearing on whether the imaginary concept of "God' is useful in the same way.

The second argument you've offered is that religion is real. It denotes something real. Once again, this has no bearing on whether the concept of "god' is useful in the same way as the concept "religion" is.

You have not actually offered proof, nor an example, of the methodological need that you claim is useful.

You end up concluding "it has certain applications", without giving a notion of what those applications are. They cannot be hypothetical, but then, what are they?

Edited July 1, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

It's more accurate to use the terms that they use. Simply invoke a liberal use of the word imaginary as a prefix for key concepts, such as God.

Otherwise I think we are all in agreement. God is as real as complex math or any other similar theoretical field of study. It's just an imaginary abstraction which can provide unique insight

No. I thought I explained it, this is a continuation of my prev. post: Math is an abstraction which can provide unique insight into the real world. God is a floating abstraction which can provide no insight into reality.

As for insight into the minds of those who believe in God, psychology (another field full of abstractions, can provide an excellent insight into that. Floating abstractions still cannot.

[Greebo]

No. I thought I explained it, this is a continuation of my prev. post: Math is an abstraction which can provide unique insight into the real world. God is a floating abstraction which can provide no insight into reality.

It might be clearer to put it like this:

Mathematics is an abstraction of and derived from reality, and thus can provide unique insight into the nature of reality, even though there are concepts in mathematics which are impossible.

God, however, has no basis in reality, and thus has no derivative value.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Greebo

[slacker00]

You're making a claim that the imaginary concept of God can be useful for methodological reasons.

Yes.

One argument you've offered is that some other, unrelated imaginary concepts are useful for methodological reasons.

I was making the case that contradictory & imaginary concepts fit within the scope of Objectivism. So, we are in agreement here, I assume.

However, that argument has no bearing on whether the imaginary concept of "God' is useful in the same way.

Absolutely. We are in agreement that an imaginary God concept plays no role in mathematics with which I am familiar.

The second argument you've offered is that religion is real. It denotes something real. Once again, this has no bearing on whether the concept of "god' is useful in the same way as the concept "religion" is.

I'd say the concept of an imaginary God is basically what defines religion, depending on how we want to define religion. But, please, let's just use the casual definition. It's not useful to split hairs here. Can we not agree that God & religion are tightly integrated?

You have not actually offered proof, nor an example, of the methodological need that you claim is useful.

I gave examples. Proof is rarely trivial. I was hoping that we could agree about the role the so called imaginary God concept has played in the course of history, art, literature, politics, morality, law, ethics, etc. This is not only the case in ancient history, but still exists today. I made all of these points already. Maybe you missed my original post.

You end up concluding "it has certain applications", without giving a notion of what those applications are. They cannot be hypothetical, but then, what are they?

Here, I'll quote my previous explanations in the posts above which you may have missed.

Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.

I think it's worth acknowledging this imaginary God as relevant in concepts of method regarding how to deal with specific elements of reality, namely society in general as well as politics, law, and history in specific. It'd be nice to dismiss this imaginary God, but that would be rejecting that part of reality which is tightly woven into my daily live and the lives of the rest of you too, if you just open your eyes and see it for what it is and deal with it rationally.

No, it isn't proof. It's an appeal to common sense. If you reject any of these specific claims, you need to address the specific claim. Never again proclaim, "You're wrong" and just walk away. That is extremely rude and insulting to me. I do appreciate this final clarification of your original statement.

[slacker00]

God is a floating abstraction which can provide no insight into reality.

Can you link me to some proof of this assertion? It's ok if you can't. I do recognize the difficulty of legitimate proof.

You are basically making a blanket assertion which is opposite of my assertion. Funny how some ask me for proof but others may post assertions without proof.

As for insight into the minds of those who believe in God, psychology (another field full of abstractions, can provide an excellent insight into that. Floating abstractions still cannot.

Psychology might add some perspective, but it is still a young science. I expect any perspective about the mind of a believer of God verses the mind of a non-believer of God is very limited science.

Edited July 1, 2009 by slacker00

[KurtColville]

Here, I'll quote my previous explanations in the posts above which you may have missed.

Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.

I think it's worth acknowledging this imaginary God as relevant in concepts of method regarding how to deal with specific elements of reality, namely society in general as well as politics, law, and history in specific. It'd be nice to dismiss this imaginary God, but that would be rejecting that part of reality which is tightly woven into my daily live and the lives of the rest of you too, if you just open your eyes and see it for what it is and deal with it rationally.

I'm just now perusing this thread, but I see your confusion. As long as you recognize that "God" is an anti-concept, there's a chance to make sense of this argument. What is relevant to Western culture isn't God, or even the supposed concept of God, but the constantly shifting, contradictory referents that have been packaged as God throughout history. If you change the above sentence to, "Even though God is imaginary, people's rationalistic use of this word to denote all sorts of phenomena, real and imagined, plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture," then that's true. It isn't God that influenced the West, but what people irrationally imagined God to be.

You should be easily able to see the error in stating that "this imaginary God" is part of reality. There is no way that a non-existent can be thought of as part of reality, in any fashion. What you are referring to is a delusion -- the treatment of a non-existent as an existent. The delusion is real; the supposed referent of the delusion (God) is not. I don't think anyone here is oblivious to the potency and pervasiveness of the rationalization that is God.

As to God being relevant to concepts of method, how does an anti-concept help you understand anything about reality? Citing imaginary numbers, despite the fact that they have no physical referent, they are indispensible concepts of method in treating sinusoidal waves as abstractions. Those are real things; a concept of method tied to reality is necessary to understand them.

To make an analogy, "multiculturalism" is, like God, an anti-concept. It is rationally unusable; it has no referent in reality, and the "meaning" which it is meant to hint at is rubbery on demand, limited only by the fact that its audience isn't 100% detached from reality (e.g. "multiculturalism" can be used in the context of "moral relativism", but not in the context of "banana"). Multiculturalism doesn't give one insight into anything, because it isn't anything. But when you look at how people rationalize generalized group characteristics, and slap the mystery label of "multiculturalism" on it, then you have something to examine, which, again, reduces to examining a popularized delusion.

When you talk about God being a shaping force in history, it isn't God that you're talking about, but what people make of a loosely agreed-upon fantasy.