Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Your beliefs are only relevant insofar as I see a lot of people telling you "If you read XYZ..." and I was trying to explain to them that you are pretty familiar with Objectivism already. I thought you had previously described yourself as a Christian. If that is not the case, my apologies.

Okay.

A slightly related question - what do you believe a universe in which there was no God would look like?

I don't think that there would be a universe if there was no God. God sustains everything logically contingent (other than himself, of course).

Thanks for the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collins just seems to be saying that the constants (and so forth) need to fall within a seemingly very precise range. His language doesn't necessarily imply that there's someone setting the constants.

Oh come on!

banghead.gif

I'm not sure why my beliefs should come into it at all. It should just be about the logic. Since you bring it up, I've read OPAR several times, as well as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and a lot of Rand's nonfiction.

It is relevant to anyone trying to explain something to you. They have to gauge whether you’re ignorant, obtuse, or a troll, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

I don't think that there would be a universe if there was no God. God sustains everything logically contingent (other than himself, of course).

Thanks for the question.

To me, this smacks of "I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect."

To my knowledge, Objectivists have not put forth any strong arguments to show theism is incoherent. They have no reason, therefore, to think it is incoherent.

This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this smacks of "I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect."

There are many ways that I could respond to this. Suffice to say that I invest a pretty big portion of my time into discovering whether or not my current position on the existence of God is correct, and have done so for at least the last couple of years.

This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent. Do you think that the reasoning in this book fails? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent. Do you think that the reasoning in this book fails? If so, why?

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don't make us chase you around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don't make us chase you around.

My apologies. I usually don't point people to books and websites as much as I've been doing in this discussion. I think I'm doing it a little more in this discussion because people are claiming that theism is incoherent and arbitrary as if these claims are uncontroversial. I'm trying to get across that (1) there's a big body of rigorous philosophical literature on the existence and coherence of God and (2) it's academically respectable to argue for the existence of God in philosophy - it's not a "given" that God is incoherent and arbitrary.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies. I usually don't point people to books and websites as much as I've been doing in this discussion. I think I'm doing it a little more in this discussion because people are claiming that theism is incoherent and arbitrary as if these claims are uncontroversial. I'm trying to get across that (1) there's a big body of rigorous philosophical literature on the existence and coherence of God and (2) it's academically respectable to argue for the existence of God in philosophy - it's not a "given" that God is incoherent and arbitrary.

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim.

The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so.

This, I think, is where people are coming from here.

In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here:

click arrow to travel to post

[edited to add]

Edited by chuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim.

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn't exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don't know that. It's a little like the creationists, who claim to know that evolution did not happen in spite of the nearly universal dissent of the relevant scientists (don't take that the wrong way; it's just the first analogy that came to mind).

The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so.

This, I think, is where people are coming from here.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think that the concept of God presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. Could you explain why you think that it does?

In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here:

[edited to add]

2046 seems to be making a number of points, so maybe you could tell me which point you meant to indicate here. The main point which I got out of that post is that it's not necessarily a problem for Objectivism that Objectivism is behind on philosophy of religion, because the new arguments in philosophy of religion are all arbitrary. I'm not sure how 2046 knows that these new arguments are arbitrary when the people working in the field apparently don't know that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn't exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don't know that.

Returning to the earlier evaded point:

click arrow to travel to post

Learning how to validate one's concepts, and how to relate them hierarchically and contextually to the perceptually given is not a skill that is taught in today's society. Yet it is precisely this skill required to anchor one's thinking to reality, to double check the validity of the concepts involved and by extension to ensure that one's propositions are in alignment with what may be induced from observations, and establish the criteria and methods of proof.

By submitting a statement which asserts that an object which cannot be demonstrated to exist via the aforementioned methods reveals the arbitrary, the absurd, the invalid. Those who argue about God for either a living, or for free on an Objectivist forum demonstrate that they have not grasped the necessity for a reality based theory of concepts to guide their rational faculties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to the earlier evaded point:

Learning how to validate one's concepts, and how to relate them hierarchically and contextually to the perceptually given is not a skill that is taught in today's society. Yet it is precisely this skill required to anchor one's thinking to reality, to double check the validity of the concepts involved and by extension to ensure that one's propositions are in alignment with what may be induced from observations, and establish the criteria and methods of proof.

By submitting a statement which asserts that an object which cannot be demonstrated to exist via the aforementioned methods reveals the arbitrary, the absurd, the invalid. Those who argue about God for either a living, or for free on an Objectivist forum demonstrate that they have not grasped the necessity for a reality based theory of concepts to guide their rational faculties.

I'm not convinced that there's much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I've read ITOE, and I didn't see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Ăśbermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who've spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she's saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to get a new microscope if the one you're using using tells you that grounding your concepts in perceptual awareness just sounds important, but isn't, because rest assured, there are really smart people out there who spend their lives thinking about God, and they just know he's up there. They're working in the field and rigorous as hell, damn it, and who are we to know better than them? (They're nearly Ăśbermensch, because apparently you'd have to be one to merit out-thinking them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that there's much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I've read ITOE, and I didn't see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Ăśbermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who've spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she's saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

It is pretty obvious that you are not convinced. Reading a text, is not going to make anyone effortless out-think anyone.

As to your reasons for leaving Objectivism, lurking on a forum developed for Objectivism for nearly four years, it brings to mind a variant that one's actions speak so loudly, it is difficult to hear what is being typed.

Things tend to dissolve when put into a liquid, not under a microscope. If you're examining Miss Rand's writing with a microscope, you might consider a large print edition.

While you are being metaphoric, your selection of concepts to convey that metaphor certainly back up your opening statement about the theory of concepts.

Without a theory of concepts, identifications of "floating abstractions", "invalid or stolen concepts", have been cast aside as semantics in my past, and this by a man who had gone to a seminary to become proficient at hermeneutics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that there's much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I've read ITOE, and I didn't see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Ăśbermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who've spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she's saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

You didn't see anything like that because that wasn't the point or argument that Rand was ever getting it, not even implicitly. ITOE is about is concept formation and the role of concepts, it's not a how-to manual on becoming a super-genius capable of doing calculus without any effort. If you were looking for "The Answers" about how to think, well, they're not there. What is there is a philosophical foundation to what concepts even are and what they consist of.

Maybe what you mean by "there's not much of anything" is that it's not a giant tome and therefore lacking in rigor. The length of a discussion has nothing to do with its validity, though. If you were hoping ITOE would be a complicated 1000 page tome, then you were sorely mistaken. And yes, that does relate to this thread. The reason you find more literature about regarding the legitimacy of god is because atheists don't care to entertain such an arbitrary idea. Theists clearly recognize that the burden of proof is on them, that's why they bother to have so many attempts at justification. There's not much of anything to atheism. Reject an arbitrary assertion and you're done.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn't exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don't know that. It's a little like the creationists, who claim to know that evolution did not happen in spite of the nearly universal dissent of the relevant scientists (don't take that the wrong way; it's just the first analogy that came to mind).

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think that the concept of God presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. Could you explain why you think that it does?

2046 seems to be making a number of points, so maybe you could tell me which point you meant to indicate here. The main point which I got out of that post is that it's not necessarily a problem for Objectivism that Objectivism is behind on philosophy of religion, because the new arguments in philosophy of religion are all arbitrary. I'm not sure how 2046 knows that these new arguments are arbitrary when the people working in the field apparently don't know that, though.

I'm sorry that it seems absurd to you. For a person to say these many people are wrong and I am right is not per se absurd. Consider what would make it absurd, namely, if the many were correct. And how do we determine truth? Very important stuff here in your approach. The Creationists are absurd because they hold to arbitrary assertions and claim that the findings of science are beneath them.

I don't know how much of Objectivism's reasons for atheism you have read, but this idea of reasonable examination made fruitless from the start was clear to me when I first read it. (pp 30-33 in OPAR are helpful, as well as I believe "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," which can be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.)

The point 2046 is making is that Objectivism does not have a "hole" or a "problem" simply because it doesn't answer to every arbitrary assertion about a deity or about some supernatural something-or-other.

I'm not convinced that there's much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I've read ITOE, and I didn't see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Ăśbermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who've spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she's saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

The philosophy of Objectivism is not about taking an authority's word for it. Your approach is where you are at fault. You want some *one* to convince you that an arbitrary assertion is not true. Knowing what you know about the burden of proof, you ought to bring the specific argument to this forum and ask us to analyze the formulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'll have one coherent definition of God, please. And I'd like a side order of theodicy, when you get a chance.

And also a side of curly fries.

BTW, what flavor of Christian are you? My background is Catholic. Don't worry, if you're Greek Orthodox I'm not going to oppress you over filioque.

Here's a picture of a reliquary I took in Europe, the Saint's finger (rather browned) is there in the middle, looks like he's flipping us the bird. He was San Benedetto of Dover, the patron saint of prostate exams.

SanBenedettoofDover.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I've figured out what the root of our disagreement is. People here apparently believe that they have a method of reaching the truth, "reducing concepts to reality," which all knowledge must conform to. I will need to undermine your confidence in this epistemology before we'll be able to make any progress, because otherwise you'll just assert that you already know that any argument for God must fail because the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense.

So, loosely following an argument of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I claim that this epistemology fails because it is self stultifying. There is no way to reduce the claim, "all claims must be reduced to the self evident data of sense," to the data of sense. It's an arbitrary assertion. An epistemology which demands that we begin with self evident or incorrigible claims will always be self stultifying for this reason. (Rand's view is a form of what is called classical foundationalism, which is defunct.)

Therefore we have to back off from this epistemology. I suggest that it is more reasonable to adopt weak foundationalism, on which a claim can rationally be accepted under less stringent criteria than those which Rand laid down. For example, Swinburne's weak foundationalism suggests that a belief can rationally be accepted if it simply seems true to the agent. On Swinburne's epistemology, we then weave together these beliefs which seem true into worldviews as best we can as the evidence comes in.

So, even if you somehow establish that the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense, that doesn't imply that theism is unjustified. Theism could still follow from claims that seem true (or itself be a claim that seems true).

I'll leave it there for now, because I'm sure you guys have a lot of criticism for me.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here apparently believe that they have a method of reaching the truth, "reducing concepts to reality," which all knowledge must conform to.

“Reducing concepts to reality”, instead of deriving (or forming) concepts from reality? The second approach is stultifying indeed, as it grants no leave to just make shit up.

BTW, what flavor of Christian are you? My background is Catholic. Don't worry, if you're Greek Orthodox I'm not going to oppress you over filioque.

This was addressed to you, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Reducing concepts to reality”, instead of deriving (or forming) concepts from reality? The second approach is stultifying indeed, as it grants no leave to just make shit up.

Like much of what you have written to me, this does not address my argument.

This was addressed to you, BTW.

I don't know what flavor of Christian I am yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I am writing quickly during a class, so I apologize for any seemingly abrupt statements.

Okay, I've figured out what the root of our disagreement is. People here apparently believe that they have a method of reaching the truth, "reducing concepts to reality," which all knowledge must conform to. I will need to undermine your confidence in this epistemology before we'll be able to make any progress, because otherwise you'll just assert that you already know that any argument for God must fail because the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense.

The root of our disagreement is that you are proposing a means of knowledge apart from the senses and/or reason, which is how Rand defined mysticism. Displacing our confidence onto an epistemic system of mysticism will be challenging indeed.

In addition, the current complaint is not that God cannot be observed with the senses, it is that definitions of God or proposals of any supernatural entity definitionally "rest on a false metaphysical premise;" (Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.). In other words, the arbitrariness of propositions of a God, meaning they are proposed with neither perceptual nor conceptual evidence (Paraphrase of Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.)

I hate to quote-bomb you, but you seem to still misunderstand what is meant by "claims for God are arbitrary."

So, loosely following an argument of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I claim that this epistemology fails because it is self stultifying. There is no way to reduce the claim, "all claims must be reduced to the self evident data of sense," to the data of sense. It's an arbitrary assertion. An epistemology which demands that we begin with self evident or incorrigible claims will always be self stultifying for this reason. (Rand's view is a form of what is called classical foundationalism, which is defunct.)

This new claim of yours may be grounds for a new thread. I'll leave that to you as OP and moderators.

Something to ponder in regard to it regardless: Why must claims about potential existents in question be reduced to the self-evident data of sense? The existence of the entity in question in physical reality needs a definition (which hasn't appeared), and needs sense data to support it before becoming tenable. When one declares that sense data is impossible in regard to that entity, it is this declaration that renders his proposition arbitrary.

Therefore we have to back off from this epistemology. I suggest that it is more reasonable to adopt weak foundationalism, on which a claim can rationally be accepted under less stringent criteria than those which Rand laid down. For example, Swinburne's weak foundationalism suggests that a belief can rationally be accepted if it simply seems true to the agent. On Swinburne's epistemology, we then weave together these beliefs which seem true into worldviews as best we can as the evidence comes in.

"This seems true to me; therefore, my acceptance of its truth is rational" is indeed a shockingly weak formulation in terms of its rationality...

So, even if you somehow establish that the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense, that doesn't imply that theism is unjustified. Theism could still follow from claims that seem true (or itself be a claim that seems true).

I'll leave it there for now, because I'm sure you guys have a lot of criticism for me.

Again, the claim that an entity called "God" exists must have a non-contradictory (i.e., logical) definition of God.

That God seems to exist to you does not justify theism. Talk about weak foundations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what flavor of Christian I am yet.

Not to derail the discussion, but you are aware that Christians believe that an illiterate first century carpenter who cast evil spells on trees was the son of God himself? That he was born of a virgin, not of a loose woman afraid to be stoned to death for having sex, but a literal virgin birth, of the kind like the Komodo dragons do?

Just want to make sure you know who youre associating yourself with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The root of our disagreement is that you are proposing a means of knowledge apart from the senses and/or reason, which is how Rand defined mysticism. Displacing our confidence onto an epistemic system of mysticism will be challenging indeed.

Perhaps so, but I have a lot of spare time on my hands and an ample bookshelf to draw arguments from. ;)

In addition, the current complaint is not that God cannot be observed with the senses, it is that definitions of God or proposals of any supernatural entity definitionally "rest on a false metaphysical premise;" (Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.). In other words, the arbitrariness of propositions of a God, meaning they are proposed with neither perceptual nor conceptual evidence (Paraphrase of Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.)

I hate to quote-bomb you, but you seem to still misunderstand what is meant by "claims for God are arbitrary."

Sorry, I'm not understanding you. What are you doing in this passage? Are you making a positive argument against the existence of God, or are you claiming that there's no evidence for the existence of God, or what?

This new claim of yours may be grounds for a new thread. I'll leave that to you as OP and moderators.

Something to ponder in regard to it regardless: Why must claims about potential existents in question be reduced to the self-evident data of sense? The existence of the entity in question in physical reality needs a definition (which hasn't appeared), and needs sense data to support it before becoming tenable. When one declares that sense data is impossible in regard to that entity, it is this declaration that renders his proposition arbitrary.

This seems to beg the question against my argument, which attempted to establish precisely that a paucity of sensory data does not necessarily make a claim arbitrary. I assume I'm not understanding you somehow.

"This seems true to me; therefore, my acceptance of its truth is rational" is indeed a shockingly weak formulation in terms of its rationality...

Why? You must know that you can't just reject Swinburne's epistemology without a reason.

Again, the claim that an entity called "God" exists must have a non-contradictory (i.e., logical) definition of God.

That God seems to exist to you does not justify theism. Talk about weak foundations!

We're not even to the point of defining God yet, as far as I can tell. We're discussing epistemology as a preamble to talking about God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I claim that this epistemology fails because it is self stultifying. There is no way to reduce the claim, "all claims must be reduced to the self evident data of sense," to the data of sense. It's an arbitrary assertion. An epistemology which demands that we begin with self evident or incorrigible claims will always be self stultifying for this reason. (Rand's view is a form of what is called classical foundationalism, which is defunct.)

Well, first we would need to flesh out that claim a little. 'Must' for what purpose? We are talking about verifying claims, determining the truth of claims. If we take 'true' to mean 'consistent with fact or reality,' then we need to connect a claim to reality in some way in order to evaluate its truthfulness. Ultimately, all of our connections to reality come from the evidence of the senses. Think of all the evidence used for scientific inquiry throughout our history. All of it is ultimately processed and evaluated by the scientists and experimenters themselves, using their senses; that is the stopping point. All roads lead through there. Thus, we can evaluate the claim you have proposed above, using the evidence of our senses and logical reasoning, and support it using the methodology you are arguing against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to derail the discussion, but you are aware that Christians believe that an illiterate first century carpenter who cast evil spells on trees was the son of God himself? That he was born of a virgin, not of a loose woman afraid to be stoned to death for having sex, but a literal virgin birth, of the kind like the Komodo dragons do?

Just want to make sure you know who youre associating yourself with.

Yes, I know what Christianity is. You did make me laugh, though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must know that you can't just reject Swinburne's epistemology without a reason.

The problem with that epistemology is that it's not an epistemology in any helpful sense. It draws no difference between different reasons that beliefs 'seem' true to people; whether they seem true because they are consistent with the evidence, or whether they seem true because, say, the individual in question really wants to believe that they're true. There is no method for determining anything other than appeals to feelings; there is no method of evaluating how those feelings were formed and whether or not they themselves are valid. Thus, contradictory claims 'seem' true to different people, and there is no proposed method for sorting them out.

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...