Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Deism might be perfectly compatible with objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You're not an Objectivist. It is a closed system which contains atheism and non-religion. Rationalize your religion however you want to comfort yourself but you don't fool others. Even if there is a portion of the brain disposed towards religion that doesn't make it appropriate as a means of survival for man. Schizophrenics have a schizophrenic portion of their brain but it doesn't make it a good way to live. Also Alper's statistical studies don't prove anything; It has to be sensible and appropriate for individual lives. Majorities have done all kinds of stupid things through history; religion is just one of the most recurring ones. Additionally I do not see how this benefits your life in any way. As I see it, it is a waste of time and like all deism is just an added pointless construct between your beliefs and knowledge and yourself.

And also do you really worship gods from Elder Scrolls? I mean I thought Christianity was crazy but resorting to a pantheon of gods like you live in ancient Greece or Rome and basing them on video game elements? When I finally began to move to atheism I realized there was little point believing in hypothetical characters I am certain to be false when I could believe in myself and my abilities to do good without trying to please a God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now that Ayn Rand has finally demonstrated the efficacy of Reason to man in the 20th century, a new speculation about God has emerged as a revision of Blaise Pascal's 17th c. thought that it is safer

There you go again, calling this "research" when it actually boils down to the assertion that anything that the vast majority does is good.

If you have not read Ralph Waldo Emerson, I suggest you do.

Alper doesn't say that what "the vast majority does is good" in fact he is an atheist, his research or theory or whatever you want to call it is abut the following question: Why mankind invented Gods?

I will try to read Emerson, thanks for the advice and please don't get mad, this discussion is not personal, it is about philosophy.

In a previous post you spoke about "childish insults" and I didn't know what were you talking about, I am sorry if my non-orthodox ideas offended you

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not an Objectivist. It is a closed system which contains atheism and non-religion. Rationalize your religion however you want to comfort yourself but you don't fool others. Even if there is a portion of the brain disposed towards religion that doesn't make it appropriate as a means of survival for man. Schizophrenics have a schizophrenic portion of their brain but it doesn't make it a good way to live. Also Alper's statistical studies don't prove anything; It has to be sensible and appropriate for individual lives. Majorities have done all kinds of stupid things through history; religion is just one of the most recurring ones. Additionally I do not see how this benefits your life in any way. As I see it, it is a waste of time and like all deism is just an added pointless construct between your beliefs and knowledge and yourself.

And also do you really worship gods from Elder Scrolls? I mean I thought Christianity was crazy but resorting to a pantheon of gods like you live in ancient Greece or Rome and basing them on video game elements? When I finally began to move to atheism I realized there was little point believing in hypothetical characters I am certain to be false when I could believe in myself and my abilities to do good without trying to please a God.

Oh well... I am sorry but you don't have the authority to say whether I am Objectivist or not

About the Elder Scroll Pantheon I just like it, and since all Gods are invented then why one would be better than other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I already realized that it was a mistake telling about my little personal joke/practice/ceremony about the Elder Scrolls Pantheon

I officially regret/retire my comments :)

The writing finger writes

And having writ, moves on;

Not all thy piety, nor thy wit

Can lure it back to cancel half a line;

Nor all thy tears

Wash away one word of it.

- Omar Khayyam, writing about God and destiny, but also applicable to comments made in the public domain ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well... I am sorry but you don't have the authority to say whether I am Objectivist or not

About the Elder Scroll Pantheon I just like it, and since all Gods are invented then why one would be better than other?

Well I suppose I can't but Rand defined what Objectivism is and your beliefs are not compatible with it; they are antithetical. What you claim to be is an Objectivist and non-Objectivist at once which is a contradiction and all. I agree they are all invented and none are better than the others because they all possess no true value. At most they produce an imagined effect that at some point is diminished by reality.

Edited by fountainhead777
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point in posting the review comments is because there is a specific attribute among the ones I posted. They question both the logic and the scientific validity of the conclusions, even with a specific example or two from within the book. I was hoping, since you have read the book and I have not, to explain these discrepancies. You have not done so. You expect to receive a good response when you ignore a point of the conversation that is essential to it?

Further, you are right, we cannot tell you if you are an Objectivist or not, but the deceased creator of it can and she was very explicit about what Objectivism is and who can claim to be an Objectivist. She was extremely explicit about it because she did not want events like this one that is being displayed in this thread to happen, where people that are going against the most fundamental elements of the philosophy are claiming to be members of it.

You do not meet the criteria when it comes down to your ideas and your justifications for them. You need to explain why these actions are better than not having them, which you have thus far failed to do. That is the reason you are facing a harsh reception. The people on here are reasonable and polite, but they have heard enough silly half-baked arguments to have little tolerance for them anymore. You are more than welcome to try again if you sit down and try and justify this properly. If you cannot do that then yes you are probably wasting your time and your earlier choice to retire your comments might be the appropriate decision.

Don't read Emerson, instead read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Read it cover to cover, realize the grave errors you are making if you really take pride in this philosophy and its benefits for you personally in your own life, and then come back. You are more than welcome here as long as you leave these silly claims of compatibility outside.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point in posting the review comments is because there is a specific attribute among the ones I posted. They question both the logic and the scientific validity of the conclusions, even with a specific example or two from within the book. I was hoping, since you have read the book and I have not, to explain these discrepancies. You have not done so. You expect to receive a good response when you ignore a point of the conversation that is essential to it?

Further, you are right, we cannot tell you if you are an Objectivist or not, but the deceased creator of it can and she was very explicit about what Objectivism is and who can claim to be an Objectivist. She was extremely explicit about it because she did not want events like this one that is being displayed in this thread to happen, where people that are going against the most fundamental elements of the philosophy are claiming to be members of it.

You do not meet the criteria when it comes down to your ideas and your justifications for them. You need to explain why these actions are better than not having them, which you have thus far failed to do. That is the reason you are facing a harsh reception. The people on here are reasonable and polite, but they have heard enough silly half-baked arguments to have little tolerance for them anymore. You are more than welcome to try again if you sit down and try and justify this properly. If you cannot do that then yes you are probably wasting your time and your earlier choice to retire your comments might be the appropriate decision.

Don't read Emerson, instead read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Read it cover to cover, realize the grave errors you are making if you really take pride in this philosophy and its benefits for you personally in your own life, and then come back. You are more than welcome here as long as you leave these silly claims of compatibility outside.

Ok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't read Emerson, instead read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Read it cover to cover, realize the grave errors you are making if you really take pride in this philosophy and its benefits for you personally in your own life, and then come back. You are more than welcome here as long as you leave these silly claims of compatibility outside.

I have read

Atlas Shrugged

The Fountainhead

Anthem

For the New Intellectual (twice)

The Virtue of Selfishnes

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Return of the Primitive

Philosophy: Who Needs It

And some books of Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley

I am half thru now of Ayn Rand: The voice of reason and The Romantic Manifesto

Perhaps instead of reading Peikoff's book you recommend I could re-read one or several of the books I already have?

(Specially in order to amortize the investment I already made)

Please advise

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to ignore the fact that to give any credit to any idea, beyond what reason and evidence warrant, is to be irrational. You don't want to play around with irrationality because reason is a discipline. Do something right part of the time and wrong part of the time and you won't be very good at doing it. Eat a little food and a little poison, and you'll get pretty sick. Personally, I think any interest in transcendental powers, knowledge, etc. is a symptom of a serious problem.

-- Mindy

Link to post
Share on other sites

OPAR is the best overall review of the philosophy and it validates it in explicit terms and discussion regarding both abstracts (especially) and concretes. I believe that this would be more beneficial to you regarding your confusion with the areas of faith/belief/god/actions inquired here and everything else that has transpired in this thread over the other options you listed. It also would likely be beneficial to you in general having read that book. So my advice is to simply purchase OPAR (it isn't expensive and it is well worth the content). It will be much clearer to you what errors you are making. I do not agree with Peikoff on everything when it comes to the world of issues, there have been times I have disagreed with conclusions in his podcasts for instance. However when it comes to the philosophy in general and its delivery he has done an exceptional and 100% accurate (any debate about this is thrown out by the fact Ayn Rand approved of it as a placeholder if she did not write on herself, which she didn't) and it is the best source for this information all in one place, regardless of your overall personal opinion of Peikoff this work is without contest, at least at this time, in its goal.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's cut it in "I like it" which is true :)

But don't you want to know WHY you like it? Aren't you worried that there is no reason to like it? The unexamined life, after all...

-- Mindy

Link to post
Share on other sites

OPAR is the best overall review of the philosophy and it validates it in explicit terms and discussion regarding both abstracts (especially) and concretes. I believe that this would be more beneficial to you regarding your confusion with the areas of faith/belief/god/actions inquired here and everything else that has transpired in this thread over the other options you listed. It also would likely be beneficial to you in general having read that book. So my advice is to simply purchase OPAR (it isn't expensive and it is well worth the content). It will be much clearer to you what errors you are making. I do not agree with Peikoff on everything when it comes to the world of issues, there have been times I have disagreed with conclusions in his podcasts for instance. However when it comes to the philosophy in general and its delivery he has done an exceptional and 100% accurate (any debate about this is thrown out by the fact Ayn Rand approved of it as a placeholder if she did not write on herself, which she didn't) and it is the best source for this information all in one place, regardless of your overall personal opinion of Peikoff this work is without contest, at least at this time, in its goal.

Ok thanks for taking your time for this recommendation. I will probably buy it when I have a chance

I have read a couple of Peikoff's essays and they are worth the money

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to ignore the fact that to give any credit to any idea, beyond what reason and evidence warrant, is to be irrational. You don't want to play around with irrationality because reason is a discipline. Do something right part of the time and wrong part of the time and you won't be very good at doing it. Eat a little food and a little poison, and you'll get pretty sick. Personally, I think any interest in transcendental powers, knowledge, etc. is a symptom of a serious problem.

-- Mindy

I don't think simple "interest" would be a problem, no subject has a virus that you can catch if you study it. In any case problems could eventually begin with what you do with the results of your study...

And if you read my posts I am not giving any credit to the supernatural, it was all about some possible "religious instinct" inside our own minds as species

Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't you want to know WHY you like it? Aren't you worried that there is no reason to like it? The unexamined life, after all...

-- Mindy

I know "why" I like it, I know myself quite well (probable more than the average I would say).

The point in this topic was that most other people didn't like my reasons for liking it or my proposed scientific explanations

And by the way I don't share in this case your previous poison/food analogy: In a hierarchical mind-structure not everything has the same magnitude and some people are not capable to give things the correct scale of importance which is essential for the proper functioning of a logic mind

Finally I would add that I don't share the quest for perfection showed by some Objectivists, it could be the reason for their defection long range... I try to be just excellent instead (and even that is hard to achieve sometimes) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so reluctant to read the Peikoff book?

Well... I don't want to open than can of worms specially since I got beaten pretty hard already :)

But I can tell you that I consider myself as a "frontier" person in general (I have my own somewhat complex theory for that) thus I am also a "frontier" Objectivist, meaning that I am more on the edge sometimes called Neo-Objectivism than in the center which I would call Orthodox-Objectivism currently directed by Peikoff

By example I have read almost all AR but also Nathaniel Branden or David Kelley and I like most of their work, and I understand them both had been "expelled" from official Objectivism

I also can understand why: Peikoff as official heir of AR has the duty of keep it pure, but I don't like duties, I like and preserve my own freedom of thought over anything else

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting, I am new to most of all this, but looking at Deism. I have thought, through reading Atlas shrugged,(I havnt finished it, so dont spoil me) that when Dagny is thinking to herself, after she comes back to Taggart Transconinental-(waiting at her house for Reardon-but Fransisco shows up), I cant remember the exact quote, but it was to the extent of.

I love you, I dont know who you are, I'm striving to achieve you-but know I never will.

I was thinking Deist right then, but just my 2 cents.. I think they could corrilate. If you referred to the (Deist God as-existence that has always existed and the most basic form of matter)?

Dunno, just externally brainstorming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Interesting, I am new to most of all this, but looking at Deism. I have thought, through reading Atlas shrugged,(I havnt finished it, so dont spoil me) that when Dagny is thinking to herself, after she comes back to Taggart Transconinental-(waiting at her house for Reardon-but Fransisco shows up), I cant remember the exact quote, but it was to the extent of.

I love you, I dont know who you are, I'm striving to achieve you-but know I never will.

I was thinking Deist right then, but just my 2 cents.. I think they could corrilate. If you referred to the (Deist God as-existence that has always existed and the most basic form of matter)?

Dunno, just externally brainstorming.

Your just renaming the universe as god; to be blunt, if I decide to rename my pet fish god that doesn't mean "god"(the concept) exists in any metaphysical sense. If you take away every power of the alleged god except for existing, you are saying there is a god, but he has no characteristics; not having any characteristics contradicts existing

Link to post
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...