You Don’t Believe in God – Disprove Him!

[Plasmatic]

Red said:

"Understood. I am duly awed by your authority, and consequently, will duly keep that in mind when I next rub your nose in your own nonsense. I suggest you at least try to enjoy it."

Why the rediculous straw man? There is no pretense of authority in my polite admonishment based on seeing similar situations. But good luck with your aim. And should you point out something in my thought that is incorrect, I will enjoy it greatly precisly because the opposite of your presumption about my attitude towards intellectual critique is true...

"Wrong. That's nothing but pure empiricism a la Hume. Hume was wrong; Rand was right to reject Hume."

No its not "pure empiricism" at all. Concept formation involves a relation between subject and object. Perception AND a process of reason based on perception.

 

"Alas, that Rand rejected Hume does not mean that Rand was right about her own epistemology, which is actually the weakest part of Objectivism."

You want to support this with particulars or you gonna stick with presumption and assertion?

"Yes, I have. Have you? I even heard Peikoff lecture in NYC years ago on the philosophy of Objectivism — including its epistemology — with Miss Rand in the audience (holding hands with Frank O'Connor), and with Rand answering many of the questions in the Q&A afterward. Were you there? Yes? No? Oh, you've only read a book? Big deal."

HaHa, you may have missed the fact that the 1976 lectures are available for download for a tiny fee... Contrary to your silly presumption, I listen to them daily while working.( QnA and all:)

"Oh, and by the way. One can reject the analytic-synthetic dichotomy AND reject the notion that all concepts are "integrations" of sense data. Sorry, but it's not either/or, much as you seem to think so."

Lol, never said all concepts are integrations... (concepts of particulars, proper names etc)

Will answer your Q after I watch Iron man 3 which is now starting.

[Hairnet]

>>>Red, first I should warn you that if you plan on spouting non-objectivist epistemology here your going to probably need to do it in the form of honest questions in the section for such. Otherwise you will likely have a short stay here. 

 

Understood. I am duly awed by your authority, and consequently, will duly keep that in mind when I next rub your nose in your own nonsense. I suggest you at least try to enjoy it.

 

   There isn't any reason to be hostile.  Its seems as though you think that Karl Popper's ideas on epistemology are correct. Why don't you start a new thread explaining your position?

 

   Since you have such a fundamental disagreement with others here, there isn't really and point in discussing whether or not santa exists until the  other issues have been discussed. 

[Plasmatic]

Red asked:

"Where does the concept of "geometrically perfect circle" come from? If you believe that it comes from observing and "integrating" a bunch of actual physical circles — all of which must, by necessity, be geometrically imperfect — then you'd be wrong. There is no incremental progression from the "physically imperfect" to the "geometrically and ideally perfect" in percepts; in fact, the very idea of "physically IMPERFECT" already relies on the concept of the "PERFECT" (i.e., the IMPERFECT is that which is NOT perfect). I'll wait patiently as you think of an answer and post it."

My answer is...... Geometry is not Philosophy.... But interestingly enough Ms. Rand answered this type of question during the QnA of the very lecture you claim to have attended. She classified in this way:

"this is a perfect example of rationalism at its rediculous stage" and admonished that the word "perfect" is a "very mystical concept" and when applied to " cognition and epistemology" ( as opposed to ethics) where "perfect correspondance" usually is thought to require omniscience about the object of cognition.

The Philosophy Of Objectivism Lecture 6 116:24 - 126:15

Edited May 4, 2013 by Plasmatic

[RedWanderer]

Red asked:

"Where does the concept of "geometrically perfect circle" come from? If you believe that it comes from observing and "integrating" a bunch of actual physical circles — all of which must, by necessity, be geometrically imperfect — then you'd be wrong. There is no incremental progression from the "physically imperfect" to the "geometrically and ideally perfect" in percepts; in fact, the very idea of "physically IMPERFECT" already relies on the concept of the "PERFECT" (i.e., the IMPERFECT is that which is NOT perfect). I'll wait patiently as you think of an answer and post it."

My answer is...... Geometry is not Philosophy.... But interestingly enough Ms. Rand answered this type of question during the QnA of the very lecture you claim to have attended. She classified in this way:

"this is a perfect example of rationalism at its rediculous stage" and admonished that the word "perfect" is a "very mystical concept" and when applied to " cognition and epistemology" ( as opposed to ethics) where "perfect correspondance" usually is thought to require omniscience about the object of cognition.

The Philosophy Of Objectivism Lecture 6 116:24 - 126:15

 

Talk about a ducking a question!

 

First of all, I didn't ask Ayn Rand, I asked you. Secondly, I'm not interested in whether you can quote Objectivist Scripture, chapter and verse. I'm asking YOU what YOU THINK! Not what Ayn Rand thought or said. You don't see the difference?

 

Once more.

 

You asserted:

 

>>>ALL truths contain concepts formed via integrations of sense data

 

I love that you capitalized "ALL".

 

OK, here's a truth:

 

"A perfect geometric circle can be created analytically by means of the function x^2 + y^2 = 1. It exists nowhere except in the mind. You cannot draw this on graph paper precisely with a compass; you cannot generate it exactly with a computer; you will not find it nature. You can only approximate it in material reality."

 

Everything I just wrote above is true. Here's the question (again!):

 

Where does the concept of "perfect geometric circle" come from, since it cannot be created by "integrating" (whatever that means!) sense data. You cannot look at a bunch of physical ovals — none of which are perfect circles mathematically — and arrive at the concept of a mathematically perfect, i.e, mathematically precise circle.

 

(This would be true of any geometric shape, not just a circle.)

 

Obviously, you don't know. Hey, it's OK to admit that you don't know. Instead, however, you duck the question by the evasive statement, "er, uh, well, philosophy isn't geometry". Yeah, but I'm not asking a technical question about geometry. I'm asking a philosophical question about epistemology: HOW DOES ONE ARRIVE AT A CERTAIN KIND OF CONCEPT? You were the one who capitalized "ALL", so answer the question or admit you don't know.

 

And instead of answering it — even with an "I don't know" — you first duck the question entirely, and then quote Objectivist Scripture by claiming that Rand believed "perfection" was "mystical."

 

So are you claiming that mathematicians are being "mystical" by employing the term "geometrically perfect circle"? I'm sure they'd be very interested to hear that!

 

They'd be as interested to hear that as gays would be to hear that homosexuality "involves involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises" and was therefore to be regarded as "immoral."

 

When you're through watching Iron Man 3, you might want to consider that Ayn Rand was simply wrong about a lot things — especially when she made confident assertions regarding issues she knew very little about.

[Plasmatic]

Red your behaving like a child.

"So are you claiming that mathematicians are being "mystical" by employing the term "geometrically perfect circle"? I'm sure they'd be very interested to hear that!"

Im saying that given that the SPECIAL science question you asked requires technical knowledge of the inductive context, I will only say that, like many other concepts in the special science it includes an invalid use of the concept "perfect". There are no perfect entities and so there can be no concept to correspond to it. The form of the question is invalid.

There is no need for one to reinvent a wheel where another has already labored so I will indeed quote any time that is the case. If you can't rescue yourself from such concrete bound habits as to not see the relation of the quotes to the current context thats your failure at integration.

By the way the "arbitrary assertion" doctrine was dealt with by Ms. Rand herself in the very same lecture in a QnA.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Plasmatic

[FeatherFall]

RedWanderer, try to be more civil.

 

In regards to the perfect circle you said,
 

A perfect geometric circle can be created analytically by means of the function x^2 + y^2 = 1. It exists nowhere except in the mind. You cannot draw this on graph paper precisely with a compass; you cannot generate it exactly with a computer; you will not find it nature. You can only approximate it in material reality."

"Perfect circle" is a higher-order concept that subsumes concepts such as shape and distance. Shape and distance are concepts that are arrived at after perceptually recognizing meaningful differences in form at a very early age. These are not the only concepts employed; measurement-omission is explicitly employed by the concept, for instance. A full treatment of all concepts at play would take more time than I have, but it would be a brilliant confirmation of some of Rand's positions on epistemology.

 

Edit: Is there a specific concept subsumed by the concept, perfect circle, that you don't think requires the integration of sense-perception?

Edited May 4, 2013 by FeatherFall
added clarifying adverb

[Harrison Danneskjold]

>>>Me – Reason is the means by which man navigates the world around him.

 

Reason is one means. Why can't there be others? In any case, much depends on your metaphorical use of the term "navigates."

Navigate means navigate.  (this, by the way, is an example of trying to turn A into B; not through prayer but through pointless nitpicking)

Sensory perception, made sense of by reason, is THE way this happens.  The alternative is mysticism.

>>>Man uses his senses to see the world around him and construct patterns based on what he sees.

 

Man uses his senses to perceive the world around him and, he uses his rational faculty to sift through all this sense data until he finds sensory evidence that his reason tells him counts as evidence for a pattern that he *already suspects, or believes, is inherent in nature.* This process always involves some "confirmation bias", which is why the great innovation of the modern scientific method was to CHALLENGE one's own pattern-making by putting it through a test called an "experiment." As Popper convincingly shows, the real logical purpose of any experiment is to attempt to falsify one's hypothesis (i.e., "pattern"). If one fails to falsify the pattern, the experiment is somewhat misleadingly called a "successful proof" of the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is taken to be "true"; i.e., TENTATIVELY true . . . until a more rigorous challenge is designed, and the limits of the hypothesis established (i.e., "such-and-such a pattern is true **within a certain context**, but beyond that, it is no longer true; ergo, to integrate BOTH contexts into one, requires a new (or greatly modified) pattern").

Where do these suspicions come from?  What is the confirmation bias of a newborn infant?

There are big differences between these two: 

 

"I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore  it behooves me to believe that it does not in fact exist."

"I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore I'll keep an open mind about it until I'm in a context that requires that I consider the matter further. Until such time, my conclusions about such an assertion shall be 'I just don't know.'"

 

How do you know it doesn't, in fact, exist? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. The actual correct answer — and the only intellectually/epistemologically honest one — is: "for the time being, I JUST DON'T KNOW."

 

And, by the way, an upshot of claiming that a negative cannot be proven is that you would have to then admit that you cannot prove that contradictions do not exist. That is, you merely don't believe they exist because "in the full context" of your knowledge, you have no positive evidence that they exist. I don't think Miss Rand (or any good Aristotelian) would approve of such a position.

 

Nagel is an atheist, by the way.

I speak only for myself here, but with regards to anything of even slight importance to me, I find "I just don't know" to be an intolerable state to be in and I make every attempt to find out as much as I can, as soon as possible.  "I don't know" is acceptable only if I don't care.

 

HOWEVER, that's assuming that "I just don't know" would be an honest and objective appraisal.  It's obviously not.

Nobody could function in a permanent state of "I don't know".  So you don't expect us to drop our ideas and become agnostic; you simply want our validation.

 

And do you think contradictions could exist in nature?  That a thing can both exist and not exist, be itself and something else, et cetera, simultaneously?

(Rhetorical question; I know you do)

 

I find it exceptionally doubtful that "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" could be written by an atheist.  But if it were, so what?  Atheists are every bit as capable as Christians of blithering idiocy.

 

I'm interested in TRUTH. And if truth happens to conflict with the "Objectivist position" on something (whether from Leonard Peikoff or someone else), then I guess it's the Objectivist position that will have to go. I take it you feel differently?

I am ruthlessly interested in the truth.  And if I do find somewhere that the Objectivist position lies contrary to the truth then I'll drop Objectivism in a heartbeat. . . And I won't continue calling myself one or pretending to hold a philosophy that I don't.

Peikoff, as Ayn Rand placed him in charge of her writing and thoughts after her own death, DOES speak for the philosophy.  It was Ayn Rand's, as much as if it were a physical invention, before she passed it to him.  If you disagree with him then you should absolutely disregard him and move on, but don't pretend it's your philosophy to alter.

 

But I would guess that truth is the one thing you don't want.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Red wanderer, in your heart lies the premise that the universe is unknowable, ineffable and unfathomable; that the human mind is simply impotent to grasp the truly important things.  Try, just once, to reverse that.

Assuming that God exists, what if people could understand Him?  What if the human mind COULD understand His mysteries and figure out exactly how He relates to reality?  Wouldn't you want to know why He is?

 

At the end of that road you'll find atheism.

Until and unless you do that, the ideological pollution you're spreading is the same one that killed Rome, started the Dark Ages, has killed and will kill anyone who truly and fully accepts it as an absolute.  It is poison.

You're asking for a sanction; for someone to tell you "it's okay; I really don't know either."  You won't find that here.

 

And I don't speak for Objectivists with this, but you won't get the slightest shred of tolerance from me.

[RedWanderer]

RedWanderer, try to be more civil.

 

In regards to the perfect circle you said,

 

"Perfect circle" is a higher-order concept that subsumes concepts such as shape and distance. Shape and distance are concepts that are arrived at after perceptually recognizing meaningful differences in form at a very early age. These are not the only concepts employed; measurement-omission is explicitly employed by the concept, for instance. A full treatment of all concepts at play would take more time than I have, but it would be a brilliant confirmation of some of Rand's positions on epistemology.

 

Edit: Is there a specific concept subsumed by the concept, perfect circle, that you don't think requires the integration of sense-perception?

 

>>>A full treatment of all concepts at play would take more time than I have . . .

 

In other words, "blank out."

 

That's OK. I understand.  You mean, you just don't know.  Neither did Ayn Rand. Neither does Binswanger. Neither does Peikoff. Neither does anyone, at least, not at the present time.

 

>>>Is there a specific concept subsumed by the concept, perfect circle, that you don't think requires the integration of sense-perception?

 

Yes. "Perfect."

 

And since, by definition a real circle IS perfect — all sense data we "integrate" (whatever that means) by means of perception are simply variations of misshapen ovals; not a single one is actually a circle — it means that the mathematical, or geometric, notion of "circle" (i.e., a perfect circle) could not have been formed by means of sense data. You cannot observe a bunch of ovals misshapen to one degree or another and "integrate" them (whatever that means) and magically arrive at the idea of "perfect circle." Clearly, since we already do have such a notion, it means we did NOT arrive at it by means of "integration" (whatever that means) of sense data.

 

Rand had a 19th-century, Victorian model of consciousness as simply a passive "something" filling the brain like a kind of liquid or gas, and simply observing the so-called "outside" world, like a video camera, and then somehow magically performing "rational operations" on this sense data, like "integration" and "differentiation" and then knowledge appears. It's a bit like telling 1st-year film students, "turn the camera on and let the camera observe reality. Then an intelligible story sequence will appear on the film." Wrong. You have to CHOOSE to point the camera to the LEFT as opposed to the RIGHT, or choose to tilt UP as opposed to DOWN. You have to choose WHAT to point the camera at, just as you have to choose what NOT to point the camera at. Same with the mind. It doesn't simply "observe." Intentionality is already part of deciding WHAT to observe and what NOT to observe.  Like her views on homosexuality and women Presidents, Rand's view of consciousness is, at best, outmoded.

 

And that's simply her view of the mind. I think her notion of "unit measurement" as the basis of concept formation is nuts. "Two pounds" are two units OF an entity's attribute called weight; thus "two pounds OF lox"; "two pounds OF cream-cheese"; "two pounds OF coffee"; etc. But "two stones" are two units OF what? "Two stones" are two units, only in some context in which something else is measured in terms of a unit called "the stone." "How much lox do you want, Mr. Cohen?" "Oh, cut off about two stones' worth."  I can't even think of a real-world situation in which one would measure something else (i.e., lox, butter, etc.) in terms of a unit called "the stone."

 

Rand was actually hauling in a concept from mathematics — the "unit" — and using it as a stolen concept in epistemology.

 

I can see why she liked that mathematical concept so much: in mathematical thinking, a "unit" allows very precise calculation. It sure would be nice to have that sort of precision in every aspect of one's thinking (ethics, politics, economics, love, sexuality, art). But, alas, "units" have no place in areas of our knowledge and experience that, by nature, are qualitative, and not quantitative. 

 

When we use the word, hence the concept, "stone," we are not "measuring" it against a "stone unit." You can measure certain ATTRIBUTES of the stone by reference to a unit OF that attribute: "the stone has a weight OF 2 pounds" (the unit OF weight is itself a bit of weight, called "the pound", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of weight); "the stone has a mass of 100 grams" (the unit OF mass is itself a bit of mass, called "the gram", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of mass); "the stone has a length of 2 meters" (the unit OF length is itself a bit of length, called "the meter", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of length). But it makes no sense to say "the stone is one stone's worth of stone", yet that's the absurdity Rand involves herself (and her followers) in when she asserts that "two stones are two units." It's unintelligible nonsense.

 

The reason I'm capitalizing and emphasizing the word "OF" in the above sentence is to show the logically partitive nature of the unit-making process. "Partitive" is a term in logic/grammar meaning "taken as a part of some larger whole." E.g., "A slice OF pizza." The pizza pie is the whole; the slice is a part. The word "of" shows the logical relation between the slice and the rest of the pie; i.e., the logical relation is "part-to-whole."

 

(By the way, "OF" is a robust word in English and has lots of logical/grammatical meanings. For example, in "A table of wood", the "of" is not telling us something about part-to-whole, but about the material of construction. In "John is the son of Richard," the "of" is a true genitive, telling us something about the parent-to-child relation. But in unit-measurement, the "of" clearly has a partitive meaning.")

 

In the case of units, when we say "a gram of mass", we mean that there's a divisible attribute of things called "mass." "Mass" is the pizza; "gram" is the slice OF the pizza: i.e., a gram OF mass (or more precisely, "An arbitrary bit of mass that we will arbitrarily name the gram").  This is applied to anything that has mass. Notice that "mass" and "weight" are not entities; they are attributes of entities. Units measure certain attributes of entities, not the entities themselves.

 

But "stone" is an entity; it's not an attribute of entities, so the idea of a unit is inapplicable.

[RedWanderer]

Red wanderer, in your heart lies the premise that the universe is unknowable, ineffable and unfathomable; that the human mind is simply impotent to grasp the truly important things.  Try, just once, to reverse that.

Assuming that God exists, what if people could understand Him?  What if the human mind COULD understand His mysteries and figure out exactly how He relates to reality?  Wouldn't you want to know why He is?

 

At the end of that road you'll find atheism.

Until and unless you do that, the ideological pollution you're spreading is the same one that killed Rome, started the Dark Ages, has killed and will kill anyone who truly and fully accepts it as an absolute.  It is poison.

You're asking for a sanction; for someone to tell you "it's okay; I really don't know either."  You won't find that here.

 

And I don't speak for Objectivists with this, but you won't get the slightest shred of tolerance from me.

 

>>>in your heart lies the premise that the universe is unknowable, ineffable and unfathomable; that the human mind is simply impotent to grasp the truly important things. 

 

LOL! Because I claim that DNA is isomorphic to Morse Code and ASCII and therefore must be the product of intelligent design you claim that I actually believe the universe is unknowable? Where did you come up with that?

 

 

>>>Assuming that God exists, what if people could understand Him?  What if the human mind COULD understand His mysteries and figure out exactly how He relates to reality?  Wouldn't you want to know why He is?  At the end of that road you'll find atheism.

 

Interesting. So at the end of theology lies atheism, eh?

 

I believe Objectivist epistemology denies that one can define something by what it is not. Thus, you cannot define atheism by reference to the fact that it involves an absence of theistic belief (as George H. Smith does) because, for one thing, that's simply a useless tautology; obviously "A-theism" means "the absence of theism", just as "the absence of theism" means "A-theism". So what else is new?

 

A definition in the Objectivist sense requires that one identify a characteristic of the entity and abstract it as the "essential" characteristic. The essential character of atheists is the unwarranted arbitrary belief that ALL phenomena in the universe were caused by, and are explainable by means of, a chain of causes and effects, each of which is necessary and determined, and consisting of nothing but matter and energy.This is obviously no different from naive philosophical materialism. If you are a consistent atheist, you will be a consistent naive materialist; if you are a consistent naive materialist, you will necessarily be an atheist.

 

>>>Until and unless you do that, the ideological pollution you're spreading is the same one that killed Rome, started the Dark Ages, has killed and will kill anyone who truly and fully accepts it as an absolute.  It is poison.

 

You're as ignorant of history as you are of modern trends in biochemistry. I'm not surprised. What killed Rome was welfare statism, not its various religions; the Dark Ages never existed — that's like referring to Africa as "the dark continent." You mean, "the Middle Ages," and much good scholarly historical work has been done over the past 75 years reconstructing what life and thought were like between the fall of Rome and the discovery of the New World. It was anything but "dark." That's Ayn Rand speaking. She read nothing and knew nothing about the Middle Ages, and didn't know that much about the Renaissance either. Like the anti-cleric bigots in the Enlightenment, she simply attributed anything she didn't like (especially regarding religion) to the "Dark Ages", and everything she did like (such as linear perspective in painting) to the "rebirth of reason" during the Renaissance.

 

Not only has there never been a thriving civilization and culture based on atheism in history, but those cultures that adopt (or were compelled to adopt) atheism as its "officially correct" stance, systematically murdered more people than all the religious conflicts in history. The Inquisition, for example, never appeared in the "Dark Ages," but was a product of the early Renaissance. Although an accurate death count is hard to determine, scholars today doubt that more than 10,000 people died, and some put the number much lower. As far as I'm concerned, that's 10,000 too many. But how many did atheist Russian communism kill? More than 30 million. What about atheist Chinese communism? About 70 million. What about Cambodia? About 2 million. What about German National Socialism? The Nazis were not Christians; they were simply pagans who ultimately worshiped nothing and no one but their own power. They murdered over 20 million. What about the atheists and reason-worshipers of the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution? At least 100,000.

 

So I don't know what you're talking about. It is religion* that has informed tolerant cultures throughout history, and atheism that has insisted "If you think differently from us, you are obviously a danger to society and therefore must be put away in a prison, a gulag, a psychiatric ward, or a re-education camp."

 

In fact, your own fear-mongering statements reflect that very same mindset, Harrison. I have no doubt that a real-life "Galt's Gulch" would be a very closed, intolerant society, full of re-education camps for errant "theists", where they would be compelled to recite a catechism of Galt's speech.  I can see Peikoff or Binswanger loving their self-important roles as "rational" Mengeles or Eichmanns. Didn't Peikoff openly claim that he supported the idea of a "purge" in Objectivism, in the name of "quality control", so that it would be Platonically unchanging for all time? So maybe Peikoff sees himself more in the role of a Stalin or a Beria.

 

Who knows. He once lectured us on Objectivism in New York City wearing very loud checkered pants and jacket. With sartorial tastes that aggressively offensive, anything is possible.

 

[*I admit, of course, that the religion of Islam is a glaring exception. In all honesty, we can say that throughout history Islam has almost been as intolerant and bloodthirsty as atheism.]

[RedWanderer]

And I don't speak for Objectivists with this, but you won't get the slightest shred of tolerance from me.

 

I learned early on that intolerance comes naturally to committed Objectivists.

 

It's mainly caused by a combination of ignorance and fear.

[RedWanderer]

@Harrison:

 

>>> It was Ayn Rand's, as much as if it were a physical invention, before she passed it to him.

 

Newton's calculus, and Newton's cosmology, were "his" as if they were physical inventions, yet other people added to the knowledge, and even, eventually contradicted it. Yet Newton is still given credit where credit is due.

 

Clearly, you're attracted to the idea of "dogma"; official doctrine of an institution, such as the Church, and which cannot by definition grow or expand with new ideas from the thinking or experiences of new people. The dogma remains static and attempts to change it or add to it are perceived as a threat.

 

That makes Objectivism a secular religion, not a secular philosophy. Moreover, it makes Objectivism very similar to modern cults that have their origin in a person, rather than myths or stories of some divine being. It's common today, for example, to see parallels drawn between Objectivism and Scientology. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

>>>in your heart lies the premise that the universe is unknowable, ineffable and unfathomable; that the human mind is simply impotent to grasp the truly important things. 

 

LOL! Because I claim that DNA is isomorphic to Morse Code and ASCII and therefore must be the product of intelligent design you claim that I actually believe the universe is unknowable? Where did you come up with that?

Oh, LOL!  Because I was raised Mormon, I've researched each and every branch of Christianity (I've attended church at almost every denomination) and looked into basically everything else, and wow, LOL I guess I felt it in my genes!

Or maybe it's because I know your kind, I've been one before, I know all about your thoughts and your positions and I know what's at the root of it.  Maybe, just maybe, I've given this whole issue just a teensy bit of thought already.

You eat, sleep and breathe "I don't know and nobody could ever know".  That's what all of your arguments amount to.  As a Christian, you have accepted that there are vast portions of reality which nobody can ever understand.  Your purpose now is to stop everyone else from trying.

And if you deny it then you're full of it because you know it's true.

 

>>>Assuming that God exists, what if people could understand Him?  What if the human mind COULD understand His mysteries and figure out exactly how He relates to reality?  Wouldn't you want to know why He is?  At the end of that road you'll find atheism.

 

Interesting. So at the end of theology lies atheism, eh?

YES!!!!

IF YOU SPEND ONE SOLITARY MOMENT ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH YOU WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME ATHEIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that you spent two paragraphs trying to refute that proves the previous assertion.

 

>>>Until and unless you do that, the ideological pollution you're spreading is the same one that killed Rome, started the Dark Ages, has killed and will kill anyone who truly and fully accepts it as an absolute.  It is poison.

 

You're as ignorant of history as you are of modern trends in biochemistry. I'm not surprised. What killed Rome was welfare statism, not its various religions; the Dark Ages never existed — that's like referring to Africa as "the dark continent." You mean, "the Middle Ages," and much good scholarly historical work has been done over the past 75 years reconstructing what life and thought were like between the fall of Rome and the discovery of the New World. It was anything but "dark." That's Ayn Rand speaking. She read nothing and knew nothing about the Middle Ages, and didn't know that much about the Renaissance either. Like the anti-cleric bigots in the Enlightenment, she simply attributed anything she didn't like (especially regarding religion) to the "Dark Ages", and everything she did like (such as linear perspective in painting) to the "rebirth of reason" during the Renaissance.

 

Not only has there never been a thriving civilization and culture based on atheism in history, but those cultures that adopt (or were compelled to adopt) atheism as its "officially correct" stance, systematically murdered more people than all the religious conflicts in history. The Inquisition, for example, never appeared in the "Dark Ages," but was a product of the early Renaissance. Although an accurate death count is hard to determine, scholars today doubt that more than 10,000 people died, and some put the number much lower. As far as I'm concerned, that's 10,000 too many. But how many did atheist Russian communism kill? More than 30 million. What about atheist Chinese communism? About 70 million. What about Cambodia? About 2 million. What about German National Socialism? The Nazis were not Christians; they were simply pagans who ultimately worshiped nothing and no one but their own power. They murdered over 20 million. What about the atheists and reason-worshipers of the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution? At least 100,000.

 

So I don't know what you're talking about. It is religion* that has informed tolerant cultures throughout history, and atheism that has insisted "If you think differently from us, you are obviously a danger to society and therefore must be put away in a prison, a gulag, a psychiatric ward, or a re-education camp."

 

In fact, your own fear-mongering statements reflect that very same mindset, Harrison. I have no doubt that a real-life "Galt's Gulch" would be a very closed, intolerant society, full of re-education camps for errant "theists", where they would be compelled to recite a catechism of Galt's speech.  I can see Peikoff or Binswanger loving their self-important roles as "rational" Mengeles or Eichmanns. Didn't Peikoff openly claim that he supported the idea of a "purge" in Objectivism, in the name of "quality control", so that it would be Platonically unchanging for all time? So maybe Peikoff sees himself more in the role of a Stalin or a Beria.

I sincerely hope that you get to eat those words, someday.  There's no way for you to be that stupid, accidentally.

You are saying that the dark ages were good and the renaissance was bad, and that the Spanish inquisition wasn't caused by Christianity.  How about everything else in the entire history of the world, you worthless sack of entrails?

THE MIDDLE EAST

THE CRUSADES

THE CATHARS

THE JEWS

THE CAANANITES

 

WHAT ABOUT THE GENOCIDES THAT GOD HIMSELF SUGGESTED IN THE BIBLE YOU STUPID PIG?!?!?!?!

 

I can't do this.  You're beyond all hope and you'd say anything to protect your bloody cult of death.

I hope you actually do rot in Hell.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I learned early on that intolerance comes naturally to committed Objectivists.

 

It's mainly caused by a combination of ignorance and fear.

 

Tell that to everyone who's ever been murdered in the name of God by some fanatical SOB like YOU.

 

My intolerance stems from my hatred for lies and hypocrisy.  It's enhanced exponentially by my passionate loathing for murderous scum, which LONG predates the first time I EVER even HEARD about Rand.

But part of it is fear; yes.  Fear that the dark ages could happen again, someday.

 

This is why I have no respect for and no tolerance for you.  Your ideas are what have the potential to put people like me on the pyre and I will not sit here and pretend that you're just some harmless moron who should be treated politely.

 

And honestly, at this point, the role Objectivism plays in this pointless spectacle is that it's taking place on their website.

[Hairnet]

Seriously??? 

 

I don't know what personality disorders you two have in the real world, but please think about the fact that there is actually another person on the other side of the computer.

 

@Dannekjold Your are being hyperbolic and hysterical (not funny). 

 

@Red Wanderer

 

  Why couldn't you have just posted a thread about Rand's epistemology?  No one wants to talk to someone who accuses them of being evasive cultists (you haven't met any of us or talked to us about anything ever) . If you are going to talk to people like they are the stupidest people they ever met (without any justification either), you are going to be ignored. 

 

   You could easily just write those posts without throwing in all of the spiteful non-sense.  

 

   I would love to see more discussion of this issue, as I know very little about epistemology. 

Edited May 6, 2013 by Hairnet

[DonAthos]

I would really appreciate it if we could all tone down the rhetoric. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, but it certainly takes something away. Just let's talk about ideas, and try to extend one another a little mutual courtesy, if possible.

Anyways, here are just a few replies to some of RedWanderer's statements. I don't mean this to be comprehensive at all.

 

>>>Me – Reason is the means by which man navigates the world around him.
 
Reason is one means. Why can't there be others? In any case, much depends on your metaphorical use of the term "navigates."

 

I think man can certainly be guided by other than reason. If he could not, then what would be the point of advocating or fighting for reason?

Ships could be "navigated" by other than compasses and charts. A ship's captain could pray for guidance, or go where his gut tells him, or cast chicken bones, or follow a path he saw in a dream. I just wouldn't want to sail on his ship.

 

I'm not sure if this is a problem with ObjectivISM or merely ObjectivISTS, but many followers of Objectivism (who used to call themselves "students of Objectivism" when Miss Rand was alive) feel uncomfortable saying "I don't know" and don't consider it to be a valid category of answer. They think it's a weakness, or a flaw in their "psycho-epistemology."

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think I have any problem with saying "I don't know" when I don't believe I know a thing (and there are certainly many, many things I do not know). I can't imagine how that would be a problem with Objectivism (though I certainly find it to be a problem for some people, seemingly regardless of particular ideology or background).

 

>>>Are you at all familiar with the Oist position on arbitrary assertions? 
 
You mean, Leonard Peikoff's position on arbitrary assertions. Peikoff believes he speaks on behalf of the entire philosophy itself, but he does not. That's simply a power-trip on his part.
 
I'm interested in TRUTH. And if truth happens to conflict with the "Objectivist position" on something (whether from Leonard Peikoff or someone else), then I guess it's the Objectivist position that will have to go. I take it you feel differently?

 

Not to comment on arbitrary assertions, but just to note: the focus is (or always ought to be) on truth. And yes, if the Objectivist position on any matter conflicts with truth, it is truth which wins. But an Objectivist typically sees no severe conflict between Objectivism and truth... else why be an Objectivist?

 

Rand had a 19th-century, Victorian model of consciousness as simply a passive "something" filling the brain like a kind of liquid or gas, and simply observing the so-called "outside" world, like a video camera, and then somehow magically performing "rational operations" on this sense data, like "integration" and "differentiation" and then knowledge appears. It's a bit like telling 1st-year film students, "turn the camera on and let the camera observe reality. Then an intelligible story sequence will appear on the film." Wrong. You have to CHOOSE to point the camera to the LEFT as opposed to the RIGHT, or choose to tilt UP as opposed to DOWN. You have to choose WHAT to point the camera at, just as you have to choose what NOT to point the camera at. Same with the mind. It doesn't simply "observe." Intentionality is already part of deciding WHAT to observe and what NOT to observe.  Like her views on homosexuality and women Presidents, Rand's view of consciousness is, at best, outmoded.

 

Not to get into Rand's ideas on consciousness too deeply (in the interest of finding a good place to say "I don't know," I'm far from an expert on this subject), but I think that she does account for a lot of what you're talking about in "choosing to point the camera" when she discusses focus, and how thought is not automatic, and evasion (which might be shuttering the camera, or something; as I am neither an expert in photography, I'd also probably best lay off trying to extend this analogy).

And for what it's worth, I agree with you that Rand was wrong on both homosexuality and women Presidents. I don't think my positions on these topics are unusual among Objectivists generally, and I'm sure you could find much discussion on both topics here and elsewhere between Objectivists.

 

And that's simply her view of the mind. I think her notion of "unit measurement" as the basis of concept formation is nuts. "Two pounds" are two units OF an entity's attribute called weight; thus "two pounds OF lox"; "two pounds OF cream-cheese"; "two pounds OF coffee"; etc. But "two stones" are two units OF what? "Two stones" are two units, only in some context in which something else is measured in terms of a unit called "the stone." "How much lox do you want, Mr. Cohen?" "Oh, cut off about two stones' worth."  I can't even think of a real-world situation in which one would measure something else (i.e., lox, butter, etc.) in terms of a unit called "the stone."

 

Except that "stone" is absolutely a real world unit of measure... isn't it? And I'd be surprised if it weren't ultimately, historically related to some given, actual stone or several, and that yes, people asked for a stone's worth of lox or butter or whatever they traded in. Or maybe I just misunderstand you here.

By the way... in the interest of trying to further promote civility, calling a position "nuts" seems to me to just be an inflammatory way of saying that you don't agree with it. So I'd rather you just say you think she's wrong (or whoever's wrong) and provide your rationale. If it is indeed nuts, just let the strength of your argument demonstrate the fact (which will be more powerful rhetorically anyways, in letting the reader draw that conclusion for himself; "show don't tell").

 

I can see why she liked that mathematical concept so much: in mathematical thinking, a "unit" allows very precise calculation. It sure would be nice to have that sort of precision in every aspect of one's thinking (ethics, politics, economics, love, sexuality, art). But, alas, "units" have no place in areas of our knowledge and experience that, by nature, are qualitative, and not quantitative.

 

It's been a while since reading ITOE, but I don't think that Rand would hold love to be measurable in units in quite the same way as lox or butter. Measurable? Yes. But not in the same way. Let's see... from the chapter "Concepts of Consciousness":

 

In regard to the concepts pertaining to evaluation (“value,” “emotion,” “feeling,” “desire,” etc.), the hierarchy involved is of a different kind and requires an entirely different type of measurement. It is a type applicable only to the psychological process of evaluation, and may be designated as “teleological measurement.”

Measurement is the identification of a relationship—a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. Teleological measurement deals, not with cardinal, but with ordinal numbers—and the standard serves to establish a graded relationship of means to end.

 

If I understand her right, what Rand means is that I can compare the love I have for my wife (say) to the love I have for another given woman. I can tell my wife that I love her most of all, and be truthful in that I'm measuring something real (that is to say, such love is measurable). Or I can rate my favorite TV programs against each other, or tell you what my favorite novel is, or tell you that I'd rather go for a walk than play a game of Halo as I weigh those desires against each other. But I can't tell you that my love for my wife is 19 love units in the same manner that I could tell you that I'd like to purchase a pound of lox (or a stone's worth).

And damn it, there's no place around me where I can find genuine belly lox, and it drives me bananas.

 

When we use the word, hence the concept, "stone," we are not "measuring" it against a "stone unit." You can measure certain ATTRIBUTES of the stone by reference to a unit OF that attribute: "the stone has a weight OF 2 pounds" (the unit OF weight is itself a bit of weight, called "the pound", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of weight); "the stone has a mass of 100 grams" (the unit OF mass is itself a bit of mass, called "the gram", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of mass); "the stone has a length of 2 meters" (the unit OF length is itself a bit of length, called "the meter", and applicable to anything that has the attribute of length). But it makes no sense to say "the stone is one stone's worth of stone", yet that's the absurdity Rand involves herself (and her followers) in when she asserts that "two stones are two units." It's unintelligible nonsense.

 

Hang on, though. You wouldn't start measuring (in, like, an earlier society) with "the stone has a weight of 2 pounds" -- no one would know what you meant by "pound." You'd start with an actual stone. And you'd say something like "I'd like this much in butter," holding up your stone, and then you could compare the two on a scale or something (which initially would just be holding them up and feeling the comparison, likely). You could use that same stone to give someone an idea of distance, either laying it out end-to-end, or the distance that you could cover with a good heave (a "stone's throw").

We can imagine multiple villages having slightly different senses of what constitutes "a stone" of weight (butter or anything else) based on each referring to different local rocks.

Later on, there'd be some good reasons to have a more standardized way of measuring, and you might enshrine one particular stone in your region to be "the stone." And you could even call that amount of weight "the pound," or whatever you'd like, and understand it abstractly. But pounds or grams are not themselves simply defined in reference to other weight measures... they ultimately have to be sourced in some real world referent; something a man can heft in his hand and say "this is what a pound is."  It comes from somewhere.
 

I believe Objectivist epistemology denies that one can define something by what it is not. Thus, you cannot define atheism by reference to the fact that it involves an absence of theistic belief (as George H. Smith does) because, for one thing, that's simply a useless tautology; obviously "A-theism" means "the absence of theism", just as "the absence of theism" means "A-theism". So what else is new?
 
A definition in the Objectivist sense requires that one identify a characteristic of the entity and abstract it as the "essential" characteristic. The essential character of atheists is the unwarranted arbitrary belief that ALL phenomena in the universe were caused by, and are explainable by means of, a chain of causes and effects, each of which is necessary and determined, and consisting of nothing but matter and energy.This is obviously no different from naive philosophical materialism. If you are a consistent atheist, you will be a consistent naive materialist; if you are a consistent naive materialist, you will necessarily be an atheist.

 

Well, I'm not going to claim that my understanding of "atheism" measures up to Rand's standard of a proper definition, but I do colloquially regard it as meaning "the absence of theism." I lack a belief in any god, and I find that calling myself "atheist" helps to communicate that.

When you tell me that you therefore know my stance on "ALL phenomena in the universe," well, I find that a bit unfair. I don't even know my stance on "ALL phenomena in the universe," and so far as I can tell, I'm certainly not a determinist. "Matter and energy"? Yes. "Necessary and determined"? No. Why would you conclude that a universe consisting of "matter and energy" is therefore "necessary and determined" -- that this is the way that matter and energy work -- when our own experience of free will indicates that this is not always so?  Are we precluded from the conclusion that a universe of matter and energy can contain beings with free will?  If so, on what basis?

 

I learned early on that intolerance comes naturally to committed Objectivists.
 
It's mainly caused by a combination of ignorance and fear.

 

Somethings shouldn't be tolerated. For instance, the many atrocities that you lay at the door of atheism. Objectivists by-and-large would not tolerate such things. Do you deem that position bad or unworthy, or "caused by a combination of ignorance and fear"? Or what else do you mean? What is it that I do not tolerate, in your view, being so ignorant and afraid?

[secondhander]

I think Harrison may very well be absolutely justified in the content and tone of his response, for what it's worth.

 

I do think it's important to take the high road of calm reasoning and rationality even when your opposition refuses to, but let's not forget that with religious people we're dealing with some level of imbalance in terms of psychological health whereby they embrace mystical ideas over the reality of the world, even to the extent of killing other people in the name of god. Yes, literally, historically, killing other people,  as in it has happened in the real world and can and will again. I think strong words are what's needed at times. I don't see a whole lot of moral difference between a person who defends that kind of worldview vs. someone who defends Hitler's Nazism. In one it's the decree of a dictator trying to give the moral permission for murder; in another it's mysticism and the superiority and ruling decree of a god trying to give the moral permission for murder. But they are both just as evil and immoral in their results.

 

Ask Red if he would murder someone if he felt 100 percent sure that the true spirit of God commanded him to. His answer I think would show the nature of his lack of mental health, and show that sometimes religious people do need to hear harsh words, or simply be rebuked and called out for the evil that they defend and advocate.

 

Having said that, fortunately a lot of religious people are better than their worldview is or has been in the past. I'm sure Red has no intention of murdering people; let's just hope he doesn't start hearing the voice of god in his head. 

 

I don't know if this was the time or if Red is the person who needs those strong words, but I have a hard time faulting those kinds of words. When I see a man advocating a belief that says it's morally acceptable to kill whole nations of people if a mystical god tells you to, and it has happened -- real people have been murdered -- and then I see another man strongly rebuking that kind of thought and calling out the dangerous worldview that is being advocated, then all I can say is, "hear, hear."

Edited May 6, 2013 by secondhander

[DonAthos]

I think Harrison may very well be absolutely justified in the content and tone of his response, for what it's worth.

 

I do think it's important to take the high road of calm reasoning and rationality even when your opposition refuses to, but let's not forget that with religious people we're dealing with some level of imbalance in terms of psychological health whereby they embrace mystical ideas over the reality of the world, even to the extent of killing other people in the name of god.

 

Let us begin with our position on religion. Thomas Jefferson said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That's about how I feel about it, too, and I suspect that you and I are not too different in this.

And I don't question the pernicious actual effects of such religion, or mysticism, in that it leads (of its nature) to murder and every other evil, just as you say. "Tyranny over the mind of man" is the royal road to tyranny in fact. So yes, it is true, "strong words" are needed at times. And more than that? Force is necessary, too, when it is used in self-defense and in justice.

But when we're looking at specific situations, like this thread on this forum, and when we speak of "justification," I believe that we must examine the widest possible context that we can. This conversation takes place on a board that is designed for rational discourse and inquiry on Objectivism and its application. Or at the least, I have concluded that this is how I would like to see this board used. Such "rational discussion" needs a certain environment in which to flourish, and if I have any role as a member on this board, it is my desire to help create/maintain that environment, as best as I understand and am able to do.

So with that taken into consideration, is it true that Harrison was "absolutely justified" in saying something like "you stupid pig"? Does that promote the kind of discussion we hope to have here? Does it help Harrison to communicate his ideas? Convince those who might initially be opposed to his position? Another way to look at this is: suppose Ayn Rand had opted not to provide any arguments for the philosophy she was developing, or even written novels to convey her thoughts, but instead simply denounced and insulted those who disagreed with her? Would we be here, now? Would she have better satisfied her own goals? Would we associate Rand with "reason" (let alone have been able to refer to a collection of her essays as "The Voice of Reason" with anything apart from withering irony)? No. The voice of reason has a particular sound to it, and I believe we should endeavor to achieve that sound so long as our methodology is convincing people that we know the truth on one or more matters. I believe that it is the appropriate means to our ends, and is that which is truly justified.

That said, is there ever a good reason to call someone a "stupid pig"? Yes, I think so. I do not equate rational discourse with martyrdom, and God knows there are people here who will insult you for nothing but having the temerity to disagree with them. They deserve to get as good as they give, and in the most extreme cases, they deserve to have official action taken against them. In the present case, I think Harrison's anger is at least understandable, and RedWanderer is largely responsible for the provocation and hostility he's brought to the thread. Harrison's outburst did not come from out of nowhere. That's why I simply ask for everyone involved here to mind their rhetoric, so that perhaps we can recapture the spirit of rational discourse.

But I can't agree that "being religious" is itself warrant to descend into name calling. At least not here. Not when we wish to discuss ideas and promote the cause of truth.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

@Dannekjold Your are being hyperbolic and hysterical (not funny). 

True.  (In my own defense, I was no longer attempting to be funny)

But I was and I'd like to apologize to every rational person here.  It won't happen again.

[Hairnet]

I appreciate that Harrison.

 

   What worries me is this prevailing trend on the internet. Some people attempt to make real arguments while at the very same time insulting and abusing their opponent. The perpetrators of this tactic essentially make it extremely difficult to discuss any issues that they have raised. This means that by the end of the discussion, the issue has become so confused and everyone has become so exhausted that no one wishes to discuss the issue anymore. This allows the perpetrator to feel as though he or she has gotten the last word. 

 

    I find the whole of it to be dehumanizing. It mutates discussion into pointless debate and conflicts of personality. I don't speak to people on the internet so that I can be abused or so that I can get into unproductive arguments that devolve pissing matches.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Hairnet

[dream_weaver]

Dale Carnagies book says to listen and try to understand before one speaks.

Rand encourages the art of philosophical detection.

 

While both of these can work synergistically together:

 

When your opponent does not respond to a question derived from the principle of  philosophical detection, it still seems to disolve into a pointess debate - even if you can sidestep the conflicts of personality, and the same unproductive destination seems to be the port of call.

[Dante]

I do think it's important to take the high road of calm reasoning and rationality even when your opposition refuses to, but let's not forget that with religious people we're dealing with some level of imbalance in terms of psychological health whereby they embrace mystical ideas over the reality of the world, even to the extent of killing other people in the name of god.

Let me stop you right there. No legitimate medical profession would (or should!) include religious belief as such as a contributing factor to mental illness, and you do a disservice both to atheists and to psychologists by claiming that anyone with religious belief has some level of mental instability or psychological illness. This is simply a ridiculous notion.

[AbA]

Let me stop you right there. No legitimate medical profession would (or should!) include religious belief as such as a contributing factor to mental illness, and you do a disservice both to atheists and to psychologists by claiming that anyone with religious belief has some level of mental instability or psychological illness. This is simply a ridiculous notion.

 

 

Dante,

 

I would suggest that you do a search on "religeon and mental health / illness" and then see if you might want to re-think that opinion. 

[Dante]

Dante,

 

I would suggest that you do a search on "religeon and mental health / illness" and then see if you might want to re-think that opinion. 

 

Let's be clear about what the claim is here.  Religious people, merely by virtue of being religious, are therefore mentally unhealthy.  Not that they hold wrong ideas, or even that their methodology for deciding on these ideas is wrong, but that their actual mental functioning is flawed.  Recall that we're talking about 80% of all Americans here.  I don't see how anyone living in modern-day America could possibly think this, or stand by a statement like this.

[secondhander]

Let's be clear about what the claim is here.  Religious people, merely by virtue of being religious, are therefore mentally unhealthy.  Not that they hold wrong ideas, or even that their methodology for deciding on these ideas is wrong, but that their actual mental functioning is flawed.  Recall that we're talking about 80% of all Americans here.  I don't see how anyone living in modern-day America could possibly think this, or stand by a statement like this.

 

It is not that religion is a cause of mental imbalance; you have it backward. It is that religion is a symptom of mental imbalance. We are all mentally imbalanced to the degree that our beliefs are out of line with reality. This is true for all mental illness and mental imbalance. And while some mental illness is due to chemical imbalances, the underlying flaw is a discord between perception and reality. Whether you think that you are five different people in one body; or whether you think voices are telling you that demons are possessing the bodies of people around you and are out to kill you; or whether you think a mystical force caused a virgin to give birth to god in human form, and that we will all be judged in a life after death; all of these things are symptoms of mental imbalance -- that perception is not matching up to reality. 

 

The question that I think you have is, can it still be considered mental imbalance if it's a belief that the society at large (or a large segment of society) has accepted as true? People might be more inclined to accept worldviews that do not match up to reality when they feel the peer pressure of cultural acceptance, but I still would consider it mental imbalance, and the results will still be damaging to one's own life and the lives of others.