How Do Men of Faith, Who Consider Themselves Objectivists, Reconcile t

[Skylab72]

This must be Greek, because it makes no sense in English.

You should throw the theorem out as being either inconsistent or incomplete.

That would be silly, the theorem proves itself to be incomplete in the process of proving itself consistent. It is not greek it is mathematics, which is all greek to most folks I guess...

[softwareNerd]

It is not greek it is mathematics, which is all greek to most folks I guess...

Ah so the God that is fantasy exists, but in math. That's as clear as mud.

Give me a true-blue Catholic any day, over this type of reaching rationalism.

Edited January 15, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Skylab72]

Is Nature's God a value that requires worship? Or, for that matter, routine and formal recognition as "The Only God," which thou shalt recognize no other?

Well, IMO to the first question, No, God is nature not the other way around, a little appreciation and understanding is all that is needed to keep you alive, nature is remarkably forgiving, over all. In some situations however, she can be a bitch.

 

That "formal recognition as "The Only God," which thou shalt recognize no other?" was, IMO, finally made formal by Gödel's proof...

[Skylab72]

Devil's Advocate: That is a thorough and well-constructed statement. I appreciate it very much. As I read it, it could be interpreted as the "clock-work God" or "natural order of the universe" type God, as some Enlightenment era thinkers embraced. But can it still be considered Objectivism?

No, I would not go there. IMO it could logically and consistently be a set that includes Objectivism. One cannot insist Rand said anything she did not say.

[Skylab72]

Ah so the God that is fantasy exists, but in math. That's as clear as mud.

Give me a true-blue Catholic any day, over this type of reaching rationalism.

Dude, Please, you are an Admin on what is supposed to be a rationalist forum. If your mind is too small to understand a line of reasoning, it would behoove you to to avoid the Ad Hominem attack. The rationalists may object to your failing to uphold the your charter. As for me, if your opinion of 'reaching' is that low, why do you participate in such a forum? Is it just to inforce your own bias?

[softwareNerd]

.Is it just to inforce your own bias?

Not sure why you're upset when I'm agreeing with everything you say, while disagreeing. Do you demand logic selectively?

[Skylab72]

Lol, I was just googling this theorem, since I'd never heard of it -- I vaguely understand the joke . I included the word "layman," and the laymen explanations aren't. Thus, I'm skeptical.

 

Skylab, adding an extra concept ("god") on top of "the unknown" is pointless. By your definition of God, humans are each gods themselves. There is no apparent limit on our ability to understand. We are the "unary system", each in our brains.

True that, there are hundreds of Gödel explanations on the internet, and the quality varies greatly. It might take a while to find one that is understandable, accurate, and comprehensive enough for your needs. If you are so inclined, I think Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, published in 1958 and released in paperback by New York University Press in 1983 is one of the better sources. You can sample with Amazon and may be able to get what you need or determine it is useful to you. I've gotten some useful info with "plain language" as a modifier for the search.

 

​The use of adding a concept encompassing all of the unknown is useful when dealing with questions whose answer is proveably indeterminate. 

[rowsdower]

Objectivism is a logical proposition.

No, it's not.

 

 

Existence of a deity is a proposition.

No, it's not.

 

My observable outlook is a finite logical system (be it logical or illogical)

This just makes no sense.

 

IMO: god in most cases, I have found to imply not conscious. God however, by my definition and convention (the capital letter) which I in no way am attempting to sell, as the infinite set/meta-set would have to.

So, God by your definition would have to be conscious, and is the infinite set.

So, the union of any set with its complement is God.

def GodContains(x:Any) = true

This Scala code for the infinite set certainly isn't conscious.

Later on you act as if God exists in a much different sense than mathematical constructs exist.

 

My God, however is a mathematical concept

Nature is not.

 

I MUST be able to talk about P outside my finite system in order to remain consistent.

You can't talk about your outlook and claim to be outside of it. That would certainly be inconsistent of you.

 

which is a paraphrase of the conclusion of Gödel's completeness theorem. 

Hardly. It is about math.

 

God exists as kind of an über Reality

There must be some reason you don't say, "God is reality;" is God above reality?

 

God is nature not the other way around

You claim to be Objectivist, but your idea of "is" is awfully strange. Now we distinguish between God, reality, and nature, where God is über reality, but God exists (most things exist in reality, not above it); God is nature, but nature is not God.

 

That "formal recognition as "The Only God," which thou shalt recognize no other?" was, IMO, finally made formal by Gödel's proof...

...the hell?

 

what is supposed to be a rationalist forum.

No, it's not.

 

your mind is too small

No, it's not.

 

The rationalists may object

I think the rationalists would be cool with everything you've said.

An outlook is a logical proposition? ✔

Über reality? ✔

God is an infinite set? ✔

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves God? ✔

God is a mathematical concept? ✔

"Your mind is too small"? ✔

 

EDIT: I may not know whether P = NP, but I'm sure not going to ask God.

Edited January 15, 2014 by rowsdower

[Skylab72]

Not sure why you're upset when I'm agreeing with everything you say, while disagreeing. Do you demand logic selectively?

I am upset by the Ad Hominem attack. I demand logic exclusively. Implying that opinions I express less preferred than those of a class whose irrationality is documentable, and responsible for the fracturing of their own religion (True Blue Catholics) is offensive. The logic you say you are striving for, IS mathematics, think it through man. 

[freestyle]

The below quote is more about religion in politics, but she does make a pretty clean statement contained with regard to this topic.  (bolded for emphasis)

I saved this when I saw it first, it surprised me a bit as it shows Rand was not purely antagonistic toward people of faith.  

 

From Ayn Rand Questions & Answers:

 

 

Religious conservatives

Question: We are told that religion is our best protection against communism. Why do you say we should keep religion out of politics?

Ayn Rand: For the same reason the Founding Fathers gave. Religion is a private matter. There are many different religions. The difference between religion and philosophy is that religion is a matter of faith. You either have faith or you don't. You cannot argue about it.  But when you deal with philosophy, you deal with reason and logic. That is an objective element of language common to all men. You can try to persuade others that you are right, or you are free to disagree with them. In a free country, you need not deal with them. But religion is an issue of faith. By definition, if one doesn't accept faith, or if different people believe different faiths, no common action, agreement, or persuasion is possible among them if religion is made a condition of political agreement. ...

...

Persuasion, reason, argument are not the province of religion. Religion rests on faith - on an acceptance of certain beliefs apart from reason. This is why it must be private. When it's a private matter, it's fine, it can even be a kind of inspiration to people.  Faith is what each man may choose for himself, if he wishes.  I don't.  

Question: If religion is instrumental in spreading altruism, can we fight altruism in America without fighting religion? 

Ayn Rand: In America, religion is relatively nonmystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn't mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom.  They can, and this country is the best proof of it. 
...
In America, you would not find it difficult to divorce religion from altruism. After all, Christ said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So you must love yourself. After that, you can argue about your neighbors.

Edited January 15, 2014 by freestyle

[softwareNerd]

... it surprised me a bit as it shows Rand was not purely antagonistic toward people of faith.

Thanks for the quote.

Basically, the idea "God exists" can leads in infinite directions. One cannot derive an epistemology or an ethics from that. One can therefore build all sorts on the foundation: rational or irrational. It's pointless to list examples of all the extremely irrational ideas based on God, but then you have people in John Locke's tradition, with an epistemology that say humans are born tabula rasa and have to figure things out with their God given reason.

With that Lockean starting point, you can then believe in a large dose of individualism and almost everything else can follow.

If these two are fulfilled, God is reduced to a useless concept to the believer, because it does not impacting his life in any way. He does not seek guidance form God, except the command "use your reason". And, more rare, but still possible, he seeks his own happiness in this God-given life. Problems arise when people imagine other objectively-irrational injunctions from God.

This addresses the question in the OP. Both Objectivism and Marxism reject God. Nevertheless, a person who believes in God can agree substantially with almost everything from either of those doctrines.

Edited January 15, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Devil's Advocate]

"Why can't we all just get along?" ~ Rodney King

Look, essentially what is under consideration is whether physical laws preclude the existence of a Creator.  I don't see that they do anymore than a recipe precludes the existence of a cook.  If humans survive long enough to practice terraforming, we will be well on our way to becoming godlike and if not, perhaps something godlike will evolve elsewhere in the future, or in the past.

 

For now we can all take comfort in the fact that our dogs worship us for what we are.  It's cats you have to worry about...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

... it surprised me a bit as it shows Rand was not purely antagonistic toward people of faith...

 

Me, not so much.  Thanks for sharing.

[freestyle]

...essentially what is under consideration is whether physical laws preclude the existence of a Creator. 

 

Isn't that meaningless to consider?   Physical laws, in fact, do not preclude an infinite amount of possibilities.   That is not evidence that any of those things might actually exist, or is it reason to contemplate an infinity of possibilities.  

 

This always takes you back to, "Then who created the creator?" -- Which, I think, causes you to accept (on some level) that existence exists.

 

Me, not so much.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Do you know other passages like this?    I intended to convey that I don't know of other instances where the words she chose would not be found to be so difficult to digest by religious people.

[theestevearnold]

Dearest Devil's Ad,

I'm glad you noted that AR said it's a logical fallicy to prove a negative.

I can say, "A giant invisible peeping tom exists and He likes me to ask for favors via telepathy. And nobody has ever proven He doesn't exist."

I can't be proven wrong, because it's irreducible (untied) to reality. I have given an air of validity to the arbitrary, by the fact it can't be disproven, thereby smuggling it into the realm of concepts.

Dearest SLab,

Your "I cannot prove not P" is therefore not a way to validate the arbitrary assertion that a supreme consciousness exists.

New concepts should be deduced from Man's knowledge of reality, which makes them reducible to the axioms.

The arbitrary isn't. So faith is required.

Faith is irreconcilable and incompatible with Objectivism.

[Devil's Advocate]

Isn't that meaningless to consider?   Physical laws, in fact, do not preclude an infinite amount of possibilities.   That is not evidence that any of those things might actually exist, or is it reason to contemplate an infinity of possibilities.  

 

This always takes you back to, "Then who created the creator?" -- Which, I think, causes you to accept (on some level) that existence exists.

...

 

I accept that existence exists, and I have faith that something godlike could exist.  I live in the former, and am inspired by the latter.

 

...

Do you know other passages like this?    I intended to convey that I don't know of other instances where the words she chose would not be found to be so difficult to digest by religious people.

 

It was passages like this that drew me to Objectivism.  There are others like the one I cited earlier about individual rights (post #76).  I'll look back for more and post what I find where it's appropriate to this topic.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Skylab72]

No, it's not.

 

 

No, it's not.

 

This just makes no sense.

 

So, God by your definition would have to be conscious, and is the infinite set.

So, the union of any set with its complement is God.

def GodContains(x:Any) = true

This Scala code for the infinite set certainly isn't conscious.

Later on you act as if God exists in a much different sense than mathematical constructs exist.

 

Nature is not.

 

You can't talk about your outlook and claim to be outside of it. That would certainly be inconsistent of you.

 

Hardly. It is about math.

 

There must be some reason you don't say, "God is reality;" is God above reality?

 

You claim to be Objectivist, but your idea of "is" is awfully strange. Now we distinguish between God, reality, and nature, where God is über reality, but God exists (most things exist in reality, not above it); God is nature, but nature is not God.

 

...the hell?

 

No, it's not.

 

No, it's not.

 

I think the rationalists would be cool with everything you've said.

An outlook is a logical proposition? ✔

Über reality? ✔

God is an infinite set? ✔

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves God? ✔

God is a mathematical concept? ✔

"Your mind is too small"? ✔

 

EDIT: I may not know whether P = NP, but I'm sure not going to ask God.

Admirable command of the multi-quite man...

 

But you force me to respond in a fashion a bit more old-school.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

Objectivism is a logical proposition.

No, it's not.

 

>>O.K. why not?   

 

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

Existence of a deity is a proposition.

No, it's not.

 

>>O.K. Why Not? It sure is not proven fact.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

My observable outlook is a finite logical system (be it logical or illogical)

This just makes no sense.

 

>>I wish you would say, "This just makes no sense to me.", when you fail to comprehend. The entire content of your mind is a finite logical system, how would you have me reference the set of things I am discussing?

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

IMO: god in most cases, I have found to imply not conscious. God however, by my definition and convention (the capital letter) which I in no way am attempting to sell, as the infinite set/meta-set would have to.

So, God by your definition would have to be conscious, and is the infinite set.

>>No "the infinite set" can be integers or any other collection with no bounds, I am trying to express the set of ALL THAT IS. That Reality in which we live and breath.

 

So, the union of any set with its complement is God.

>>No, I never said ANY set, reductionist logic.

def GodContains(x:Any) = true

This Scala code for the infinite set certainly isn't conscious.

>> You are correct sir, that code is way to simple to be conscious.

 

Later on you act as if God exists in a much different sense than mathematical constructs exist.

>> Here again, I apologize for not being clear about the concept. I in no way claim or assert Gödel's work proves God or any other such construct. All I am saying is that His work made me rethink the proposition Not(God) and allowed me to come to the conclusion True(God) is more consistent with the my conviction that Reality is Real, than Not(God).

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

My God, however is a mathematical concept

Nature is not.

 

>> My last reading of latest and greatest in the study of physics sure looks like nature is pretty mathematical to me.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

I MUST be able to talk about P outside my finite system in order to remain consistent.

You can't talk about your outlook and claim to be outside of it. That would certainly be inconsistent of you.

 

>>You have it backwards, it makes me incomplete. I am striving diligently for consistency.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

which is a paraphrase of the conclusion of Gödel's completeness theorem. 

Hardly. It is about math.

>>Non-sequiter, the idea I was referring to with the word IT, was about math as well.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:

 

God exists as kind of an über Reality

There must be some reason you don't say, "God is reality;" is God above reality?

>>No, this is frustrating, I do say God is Reality. That sentence was still trying to get across this concept of an ultimate superset of all Reality.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:

 

God is nature not the other way around

You claim to be Objectivist, but your idea of "is" is awfully strange. Now we distinguish between God, reality, and nature, where God is über reality, but God exists (most things exist in reality, not above it); God is nature, but nature is not God.

 

>>No, No, No, Please I am not distinguishing between God and anything. I assert that cannot be done because God is Everything. The One And Only Superset.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:

 

That "formal recognition as "The Only God," which thou shalt recognize no other?" was, IMO, finally made formal by Gödel's proof...

...the hell?

>> feel free to ignore anything containing IMO…

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:

 

what is supposed to be a rationalist forum.

No, it's not.

>> if objectivists are not rational what are they?

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:

 

your mind is too small

No, it's not. 

>> Maybe not, show me, I said IF.

 

Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:

 

The rationalists may object

I think the rationalists would be cool with everything you've said.

An outlook is a logical proposition? ✔

>> Any set of assertions, however absurd, can be referred to as a proposition.

Über reality? ✔

>>Out of context, reductionist.

God is an infinite set? ✔

>> Not just any infinite set, the infinite superset of all sets, all that is Real.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves God? ✔

>> No, it implies, for me, a superset definition for God is more consistent  than insisting on a nonexistent God. That would leave the existence of reality indeterminate. Which I refuse to accept.

 

God is a mathematical concept? ✔

>>Mine is, you can speak for yourself. Much of my reality is described well, only with math.

 

"Your mind is too small"? ✔

>>Again, NO IF you mind is too small, certain behaviors should be avoided.

 

EDIT: I may not know whether P = NP, but I'm sure not going to ask God.

>> Neither would I, I already know the identity property, and that statement is false.  It puzzles me why you included nonsense at the end...

 

Best Regards...

[Skylab72]

Dearest Devil's Ad,

I'm glad you noted that AR said it's a logical fallicy to prove a negative.

I can say, "A giant invisible peeping tom exists and He likes me to ask for favors via telepathy. And nobody has ever proven He doesn't exist."

I can't be proven wrong, because it's irreducible (untied) to reality. I have given an air of validity to the arbitrary, by the fact it can't be disproven, thereby smuggling it into the realm of concepts.

Dearest SLab,

Your "I cannot prove not P" is therefore not a way to validate the arbitrary assertion that a supreme consciousness exists.

New concepts should be deduced from Man's knowledge of reality, which makes them reducible to the axioms.

The arbitrary isn't. So faith is required.

Faith is irreconcilable and incompatible with Objectivism.

Right you are. I assert both, I cannot prove P and I cannot prove not P. I just came to the conclusion that an All Inclusive Superset of Reality as a definition of God makes more sense than clinging to NotP, when that looks like it would logically reduce to NotReality, which I refuse to accept.  I suspect this logic to be a form of "faith". Your mileage may vary.

[freestyle]

From a believer: **youtu.be/TUKsdF-gI34  The 18th Letter (Who is God?) - Rakim

(potentially off/on topic musical interlude)

Edited January 16, 2014 by freestyle

[rowsdower]

">>O.K. why not? [is every idea a logical proposition]"

The burden of proof should be on you, because I don't know how you came to the conclusion that propositional logic describes all outlooks.

An ill-defined idea (such as God) is not suited to formalization. And propositional logic itself could hardly be called a proposition.

 

">No, this is frustrating, I do say God is Reality. That sentence was still trying to get across this concept of an ultimate superset of all Reality."

I would disagree that reality is a set at all, but if so, is God a strict superset of all reality? If so, God is not reality.

 

"So, the union of any set with its complement is God.
>>No, I never said ANY set, reductionist logic."

The union of any set with its complement is the set of everything, AKA God.

A set of everything is simply a set that always says "yes, I contain this." Or formally, { x | ⊤ }. It is the complement of the nil set (Satan?).

 

">> My last reading of latest and greatest in the study of physics sure looks like nature is pretty mathematical to me."

The ability to use math does not mean that things are made out of math.

Just like the ability to describe ideas using propositional logic does not mean ideas are propositional logic, or that reality is nothing more than a set of propositions.

Just like the ability to talk about things does not mean that they are made out of words.

 

Objectivists try to be rational, but not rationalist.

[freestyle]

What is Math if it contains a "strict superset of all reality?"

[theestevearnold]

This superset stuff reminds me of Bertrand Russell, the discredited mathematician who was considered a genius for his set theory. It was nonsense, but the damage it did to math is still reverberating in the colleges.

[JASKN]

My last reading of latest and greatest in the study of physics sure looks like nature is pretty mathematical to me.

Math is just a language made up to describe reality. It isn't literally reality itself except as the thoughts that bounce around in your head.

 

 

[...]whose answer is proveably indeterminate. 

This is a contradiction.

Edited January 16, 2014 by JASKN

[JASKN]

That Objectivism defines all faith as blind faith only highlights the error of acting on faith in lieu of reason, which those of faith who know the difference wouldn't argue to begin with.  Aquinas provided 5 "proofs" which Ayn Rand appreciated as an effort, but dismissed as unpersuasive.  It would appear that contemporary atheists have overcome the fallacy of proving a negative, which I appreciate as an effort, but dismiss as unpersuasive... thus far...

 

"If faith depends upon the measure of doubt left available to us when knowledge eludes us, then faith in God seems to me to be the far superior option to faith in no God." ~ Rabbi Jeret

We've got one way to figure things out, and that's by reasoning. Happily, it's been enough to inform us that things exist, and that what we see is what we get. Refusing to prove a negative isn't claiming omniscience, it's just another form of reasoning. Faith is a lie you tell yourself in your head instead of saying, "I don't know," or, "I hope so, we'll see."

 

Using the word "faith" to describe your expectation that the concrete won't fall out beneath your feet as you walk isn't the same thing as using the word "faith" to make any arbitrary claim you can think up, while declaring that you don't need a reason for the claim. Those are two different "faiths," and one is backed up by reason while the other isn't.

Edited January 16, 2014 by JASKN

[Devil's Advocate]

We've got one way to figure things out, and that's by reasoning. Happily, it's been enough to inform us that things exist, and that what we see is what we get. Refusing to prove a negative isn't claiming omniscience, it's just another form of reasoning. Faith is a lie you tell yourself in your head instead of saying, "I don't know," or, "I hope so, we'll see."

 

Using the word "faith" to describe your expectation that the concrete won't fall out beneath your feet as you walk isn't the same thing as using the word "faith" to make any arbitrary claim you can think up, while declaring that you don't need a reason for the claim. Those are two different "faiths," and one is backed up by reason while the other isn't.

 

You've given me little to disagree with here.  In fact I consider your acknowledgement of two kinds of faith as a positive step forward, to which I say thankee-sai