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

[tadmjones]

Repairman

Atheism is not a core tenet of O'ism, it is a refutation of the supernatural. It is a consequence of applying rationality to an idea that itself is a product of using faith to gain knowledge. The obliteration of the use of faith in gaining knowledge , I would say, is a core tenet of O'ism. Atheism or the denial of the concept of god is philosophically as significant as the refutation of the idea that 2+2 could at sometime in someway equal 5.

[theestevearnold]

Well I wasn't trying to defend Freedom From Religion, I'm trying to figure out what these acts (of violating FA rights, or being graphic) consist of.

I'm just asking for a concrete example of such an act (one of each, I suppose, I'm more curious about the FA one). I'm skeptical as to how an atheist group could violate the FA.

I'm not asking for the name of the group, or any kind of proof. Just a description of what they're doing concretely, for the sake of the conversation.

[Note: I'm talking about current/recent atheist groups in America.]

 

Regarding atheist groups violating the FA: I don't have any examples (and there might not be any). All the religious speeches and symbols that atheist groups have demanded be banned (that I'm aware of) was validated by the fact that the religious speeches and symbols were during government business  and/or on government property.

 

Regarding being graphic: Around Christmas of 2012, I saw a photograph of a sign put up near a Christmas display which parents were bringing their kids to. The sign was written in what was supposed to resemble blood. I don't remember the exact words so all I can do is paraphrase: "Christianity is evil! More innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion than all the wars combined! The Christian Crusaders and the Spanish Inquistion killed millions of innocent people in the name of Jesus!

That type of action that attempts to circumvent parents' responsibility of raising their children, and when the Freedom From Religion Foundation paid a kid a grand to go to school dressed up as Jesus on "Fictional Character Day," make me feel the need to delineate myself, the atheist, from the many social subjectivist lefty atheists who insist it takes a village to raise a child.

[StrictlyLogical]

FFR were quite simply wrong to put into motion a "display" implying Jesus was fictional.  Certainly there was a man, whose "real name" is immaterial so lets call him Jesus, who taught "love thy neighbor" "turn the other cheek" etc,, Independent historical sources verify his movements, speeches, he had a huge following and a historically significant religion has formed around his teachings for over a thousand years.  Accounts of the supernatural around this "philosopher" were of course fabrications but a man did exist around that time and said those things.  As such Jesus is simply not fictional although fiction has been written around the historical figure, perhaps from the beginning.

 

As such FFR deserves a disapproving tisk tisk for this stunt.

[Repairman]

Repairman

Atheism is not a core tenet of O'ism, it is a refutation of the supernatural. It is a consequence of applying rationality to an idea that itself is a product of using faith to gain knowledge. The obliteration of the use of faith in gaining knowledge , I would say, is a core tenet of O'ism. Atheism or the denial of the concept of god is philosophically as significant as the refutation of the idea that 2+2 could at sometime in someway equal 5.

If atheism is not a "core tenet" of Objectivism, could we agree the objective reality is the standard of metaphysics?

Atheism is a convenient term, if not the exact and most correct term, as I applied it in an earlier reply. Specifically, this thread was probing the possibility superimposing "faith" with Objectivism. More specifically, it asked how men of "faith" can consider themselves Objectivists.

Is their anyone who can explain their theology, and prove it to be a matter of objective reality?

Make your case.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Repairman

[Repairman]

I have just returned from making a quick look at the Wikipedia article on Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wisconsin. While this is my initial impression, and not a thorough one, it seems they have a record of interloping in local governments' use of religious symbols, as well as overseeing and intervening where taxpayers' dollars are used to support Christianity in a variety of ways. And they have privately funded advertisements crudely discrediting Christianity. So far, I don't know if they suppress other religions with equal fervor. The use of taxpayers' dollars is not a small matter in a nation that is supposed to have no established religion, that is, Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. As for local laws, my view is: it is a local matter, and if local atheists feel oppressed, they have a right to protest. FFRF provides the funds to fight on behalf of the local atheist(s). This subject may be better prosecuted on another thread, but I urge my fellow Objectivists to remember that taxes are not optional; government forces that wealth from its citizens, and spends it anyway they wish.

Do you wish to promote Christianity by force?

I do not foresee an American theocracy approaching any time soon. But in incremental measurements, our freedom is eroding. I will continue to support the rights of my Christian friends in their efforts to practice their religion(s) as they harmlessly do so. But I cannot condone the use for taxation to fund the promotion of religions, no matter how popular they are.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Repairman

[tadmjones]

Repairman

I am having an issue with the quote feature, so I apologize if that creates/ed any confusion. My last comment was in response to what I thought was an accusation of me being a diluter. My comment stands though , and yes objective reality is a standard of a lot of things.

[Repairman]

Tadmjones: I knew you were alright. No sweat. No accusations here. My approach to Objectivism is somewhat less than the profoundly academic philosophy students responding on this site. So far, it appears no one is going hostile here, and we, the rational, survive.

As we experience greater acceptance of self-identified atheists, I expect some confusion from people of faith, but much less confusion here among us. Much of the hostility toward atheists is the result of misunderstanding. Consider this, Marx and Rand were both atheists. Most Americans know of neither Marx nor Rand.

[aleph_1]

Of course, I'm not ignoring the Marxists. But true to my quote, I've never met one, that is, never met one that had any aggressive posture in his argument. Also true to my claim, I do not condemn any individual for the flaw of being a Christian; I do not judge them as a collective. Indeed, many Christians I know are quite decent, and I suppose I'm not sociable enough to know all that many atheists. There are few people with whom I learn of their religious or philosophical inspirations, but I do know quite a few Christians who might be "voted out of the Pearly Gates," if the majority of their fellow Christians had a vote on the matter.

Please grant me some credit; those Christians can be a swell bunch,; some are my best of friends. But I have often seen in them that "deer-in-the-head-lights" look when the discussion gets "too real."

Furthermore, your quote may give one the impression that all 20th century atheists were eager to commit mass murder. Certainly there were more than a few Marxist-Leninists that really sought to do good in the world, and at least one openly atheist philosopher that opposed the trend of socialism.

I have known a number of communists and a few fascists but I have never known one to be openly hostile toward me. I have no doubt about the sincerity and good nature of perhaps many communists. Despite that, those two philosophies have caused more grief in the last century than Christian philosophy in the last five. There could be an historical reason for that: Christians have fought themselves to exhaustion. After the reformation wars, Christians have fractured into weak factions and agreed to disagree but not go to war over their theology. Muslims do not seem to have learned that lesson yet--a lesson that only seems to be learned in blood. The vast majority of Christians that I know are only intolerant of intolerance. They have to be open and accepting in a community of churches competing for parishioners. It is the sort of tolerance spoken of by Hayek as fostered by free markets in the business world. The only difference is that business pertains to objective values while religious philosophy pertains to hokum. Religion, as opposed to religious philosophy, is used by many as a ready social setting and this is an objective value. (One that I do not partake of nor need but it is objectively of value.)

 

As Hayek points out, tyranny is the logical outcome of the centralization of power. Regardless of their good intentions, fascists and communists support systems that have tyranny as their logical outcome. Their delusions are more dangerous than a fractured Christianity makes possible. There is no monolithic Christianity, and that's a good thing.

 

As to the deer-in-the-headlights phenomenon, this is a human condition true of all those who subscribe to an ideology and when their core beliefs are challenged. You see this with Democrats and Republicans when their dogma is challenged. Knowing a little about general relativity, it is amusing to converse with those who know nothing about modern cosmology. They get that deer-in-the-headlights look when they learn that Einstein's theory of gravity matches what we observe in the solar system better than Newton's theory. Most people can't accept a fundamental cosmological shift on the first hearing. Too much of their life is invested in their current world-view. That's okay. We show by our lives that good philosophy trumps bad.

Edited December 30, 2013 by aleph_1

[Nicky]

[Note: I'm talking about current/recent atheist groups in America.]

 

Regarding atheist groups violating the FA: I don't have any examples (and there might not be any). All the religious speeches and symbols that atheist groups have demanded be banned (that I'm aware of) was validated by the fact that the religious speeches and symbols were during government business  and/or on government property.

That's what I thought you were referring to. Removing religious endorsements from government is not a violation of the First Amendment, it's the enforcement of the First Amendment.

Regarding being graphic: Around Christmas of 2012, I saw a photograph of a sign put up near a Christmas display which parents were bringing their kids to. The sign was written in what was supposed to resemble blood. I don't remember the exact words so all I can do is paraphrase: "Christianity is evil! More innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion than all the wars combined! The Christian Crusaders and the Spanish Inquistion killed millions of innocent people in the name of Jesus!

That type of action that attempts to circumvent parents' responsibility of raising their children, and when the Freedom From Religion Foundation paid a kid a grand to go to school dressed up as Jesus on "Fictional Character Day," make me feel the need to delineate myself, the atheist, from the many social subjectivist lefty atheists who insist it takes a village to raise a child.

It kinda does. Parental privilege is not a form of property right. There are limits to it. We should not allow religious parents to insulate their children from dissenting opinion. Public discourse, access to resources beyond what a child's parents tell him, etc. are a crucial component of a child's healthy upbringing.

Yes, parents do have a right to teach their views to their children, but they don't have a right to brainwash them. There was a recent thread in which I argued against the notion that teaching one's children religion is brainwashing, precisely because, in any free country, they inevitably have access to dissenting opinions, and will ultimately be able to choose their own beliefs.

But, once a child is removed from the cultural environment of a free country and isolated, to keep him from being exposed to anything except religious beliefs, then that IS brainwashing, and cause for the government to step in and protect that child's rights.

Personally, I'd rather see such attempts countered the way these groups do it: by exposing these children to opposing views when and how they can, without relying on force.

[aleph_1]

That's what I thought you were referring to. Removing religious endorsements from government is not a violation of the First Amendment, it's the enforcement of the First Amendment.

It kinda does. Parental privilege is not a form of property right. There are limits to it. We should not allow religious parents to insulate their children from dissenting opinion. Public discourse, access to resources beyond what a child's parents tell him, etc. are a crucial component of a child's healthy upbringing.

Yes, parents do have a right to teach their views to their children, but they don't have a right to brainwash them. There was a recent thread in which I argued against the notion that teaching one's children religion is brainwashing, precisely because, in any free country, they inevitably have access to dissenting opinions, and will ultimately be able to choose their own beliefs.

But, once a child is removed from the cultural environment of a free country and isolated, to keep him from being exposed to anything except religious beliefs, then that IS brainwashing, and cause for the government to step in and protect that child's rights.

Personally, I'd rather see such attempts countered the way these groups do it: by exposing these children to opposing views when and how they can, without relying on force.

 

So, you're for sticking guns in people's backs and taking their kids from them because you don't approve of how they raise their kids. This is the worst possible form of collectivism. Besides that, who decides what "brainwashing" is? This is WAY down the slippery slope.

[softwareNerd]

So, you're for sticking guns in people's backs and taking their kids from them because you don't approve of how they raise their kids. This is the worst possible form of collectivism. Besides that, who decides what "brainwashing" is? This is WAY down the slippery slope.

As his rationale, Nicky started by saying that parental rights are different from property rights. I assume you'll agree that a parent may not dispose of his child the way he can dispose of his property. So, there is a line somewhere and the only way to prevent this slippery slope is to create a clearer razor of some sort. But, perhaps this discussion belongs back in the thread to which Nicky was referring.

[Nicky]

So, you're for sticking guns in people's backs and taking their kids from them because you don't approve of how they raise their kids. This is the worst possible form of collectivism. Besides that, who decides what "brainwashing" is? This is WAY down the slippery slope.

I would use a gun to save a child's independent mind, sure. Calling that names instead of addressing my argument as to why is a logical fallacy though.

So is the slippery slope argument.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Nicky

[Repairman]

I have known a number of communists and a few fascists but I have never known one to be openly hostile toward me. I have no doubt about the sincerity and good nature of perhaps many communists. Despite that, those two philosophies have caused more grief in the last century than Christian philosophy in the last five. There could be an historical reason for that: Christians have fought themselves to exhaustion. After the reformation wars, Christians have fractured into weak factions and agreed to disagree but not go to war over their theology. Muslims do not seem to have learned that lesson yet--a lesson that only seems to be learned in blood. The vast majority of Christians that I know are only intolerant of intolerance. They have to be open and accepting in a community of churches competing for parishioners. It is the sort of tolerance spoken of by Hayek as fostered by free markets in the business world. The only difference is that business pertains to objective values while religious philosophy pertains to hokum. Religion, as opposed to religious philosophy, is used by many as a ready social setting and this is an objective value. (One that I do not partake of nor need but it is objectively of value.)

 

As Hayek points out, tyranny is the logical outcome of the centralization of power. Regardless of their good intentions, fascists and communists support systems that have tyranny as their logical outcome. Their delusions are more dangerous than a fractured Christianity makes possible. There is no monolithic Christianity, and that's a good thing.

 

As to the deer-in-the-headlights phenomenon, this is a human condition true of all those who subscribe to an ideology and when their core beliefs are challenged. You see this with Democrats and Republicans when their dogma is challenged. Knowing a little about general relativity, it is amusing to converse with those who know nothing about modern cosmology. They get that deer-in-the-headlights look when they learn that Einstein's theory of gravity matches what we observe in the solar system better than Newton's theory. Most people can't accept a fundamental cosmological shift on the first hearing. Too much of their life is invested in their current world-view. That's okay. We show by our lives that good philosophy trumps bad.

Thank you for the rebuttal. However, I'm not quite sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy or ideology, as are communism or fascism. Christianity is not a philosophy either, although some claim it is. It is a religion. Atheism, as tadjones pointed out, is a denial or negation of the belief of any supernatural deity.

The original posting addresses the question of reconciling religion or faith with a philosophy founded, in part if not entirely, on objective reality. I have never had a "deer-in-the-headlights" moment since Ayn Rand connected my original point of view with her impeccable Objectivist assertions. I have found that it is best to avoid conversation with some people who take offense easily, especially the religious. In my younger days, I have seen the "torches and pitchforks" of the irrational and offended Christian, whereas in recent times, I have more nuanced discussions, being more aware of the tolerances of other people. If I didn't think there was any value in civil debate on the subject, I would not bother at all. Yet, I will maintain that it is much easier to defend atheism based on evidence than Christianity, or any other religion.

We could debate the body-count from historical wars, and the motives of the combatants of the Thirty Years War, Irish independence, WW2, the Cold War, etc. But that is not the issue. While it is true that there is no monolithic Christianity, there is a comprehensive philosophy in Objectivism, and I for one, would hope that it maintains its comprehensive integrity as it grows in popularity, rather than morph into some sort of neo-Objectivism.

As for the multitude of irrational people wishing for the return of their religion in government, the less I think of them, the better. I truly believe that if Christians were able to re-establish their theocratic rule again, they most certainly would take up the tradition of bloodshed over the precise interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation, incidentally, was always a fundamental argument of "who's in charge around here."

Good Premises to All in 2014

[aleph_1]

I would use a gun to save a child's independent mind, sure. Calling that names instead of.....

It's not name calling, it's identification, evaluation and response.

[Nicky]

It's not name calling, it's identification, evaluation and response.

I don't care what you call it, it's still a logical fallacy.

[whYNOT]

One parent's "teaching", is another's "brainwashing", and if the distinction cannot be sufficiently and consistently defined, it is impractical  (so,.immoral) to uphold it above parents' rights .

As for dissenting philosophies, is it incumbent on Objectivist parents to teach, say, Buddhism to their child? 

Edited January 2, 2014 by whYNOT

[aleph_1]

Repairman,

 

I never referred to atheism as a philosophy. Concerning religion, surely you recognize the phrase, 'mystics of spirit'. There is a section in Wikipedia on Christian philosophy, so I guess there is such a thing. Also, the original post referred more to siding with theists on certain issues because atheists had behaved inappropriately rather than reconciling faith with a philosophy founded on objective reality. Such reconciliation is not possible as a matter of definition.

 

Nicky,

 

There is a class of logical fallacies called non sequiturs, such as converse errors and inverse errors. These are misapplications of modus ponens and modus tollens. Then there is the quantifier reversal fallacy and sweeping generalizations. Surely I did not commit one of these. I did not commit the post hoc ergo property hoc fallacy. These are true formal fallacies because they violate the rules of logic. Though not a formal, logical fallacy, there is the informal argumentum ad hominem. You will note that I did not call you a collectivist; I said that your opinion was a collectivist one. Therefore I did not commit this error either. What I did was identify the collectivist premise of your argument. You believe that you should have power over others' children, and so you do not treat the parents as your equals. You would draw a gun against the parents and take their children away because you do not agree with some undefinable 'brainwashing'. Rather than using syllogisms to persuade, you would use force. This is exactly the tactic used by collectivists all over the world to have their way.

 

If you still believe that I have committed a 'logical' fallacy, please identity the precise one and exactly how I have made it. Even if I have not made a formal but rather an informal fallacy, I would still like to know.

[Repairman]

Did we miss the whole twentieth century? The defining characteristic of that century is the eagerness on the part of atheists to murder millions in their quest for utopia. In fact, atheists of the twentieth century murdered more people than all other groups of all history. What did AR escape from other than an oppressive atheist regime? Surely, she knew that athiests could be just as or even more evil than theists. Who else are the mystics of muscle?

Some of the best people I know are christians. They are misguided and deluded, but so are many atheists.

Repairman,

 

I never referred to atheism as a philosophy. Concerning religion, surely you recognize the phrase, 'mystics of spirit'. There is a section in Wikipedia on Christian philosophy, so I guess there is such a thing. Also, the original post referred more to siding with theists on certain issues because atheists had behaved inappropriately rather than reconciling faith with a philosophy founded on objective reality. Such reconciliation is not possible as a matter of definition.

 

aleph_1, the difficulty we're having here is less one of semantics, but rather one of assignment the guilt of bad behavior to one group over another; those groups being atheists or Christians. If you wish to label Christianity a philosophy, or a private diners' club, it makes no difference to me. The fact is, there are very rude, even violent Christians, eager to commit acts of violence in defense of beliefs they cannot prove on merit of fact. Sometimes they are represented as an individual, sometimes a group, and sometimes a nation. The same can be said of some atheists, I agree. But in the event one must defend reason on the sound principle that there is no mystical supernatural power influencing outcomes, one should be proud of such a premise. Too often, the advocates of reason find themselves "out-voted" by oppression majorities. The majority most often suppressing reason in America are Christians, at a distant second or third might possibly be statist-atheist. I might be over-estimating their ranks. And I for one have witnessed self-identified Christians proposing the use of force on those that disagree with their superstitions. A reasonable number of Communists and Nazis clung to their personal religious beliefs, in spite of the political forces they were born into. A small few were remembered for their rare acts of compassion. This does not diminish the fact that they did not take an opposing position against their evil overlords, (although some actually did in secret). But in all of this, none bothered to address the fundamental question of why those atheists were evil. Why were those Christians evil?

When I see the direction leaders of our civilization are taking us, their broken moral compass directing us toward second-hand religious-philosophical dead-ends, I must ask you, how can you compromise with the evil of OUR overlords. I am not proposing aggression on anyone, but at least propose an appropriate question to the opponents of reason.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Repairman

[Nicky]

There is a class of logical fallacies called non sequiturs, such as converse errors and inverse errors. These are misapplications of modus ponens and modus tollens. Then there is the quantifier reversal fallacy and sweeping generalizations. Surely I did not commit one of these. I did not commit the post hoc ergo property hoc fallacy. These are true formal fallacies because they violate the rules of logic. Though not a formal, logical fallacy, there is the informal argumentum ad hominem. You will note that I did not call you a collectivist; I said that your opinion was a collectivist one. Therefore I did not commit this error either. What I did was identify the collectivist premise of your argument. You believe that you should have power over others' children, and so you do not treat the parents as your equals. You would draw a gun against the parents and take their children away because you do not agree with some undefinable 'brainwashing'.

Except that I did define brainwashing before, in another thread, and made reference to it in this one. If you were interested in my argument in any way, you would've either looked for the other thread or asked me what's in it. Not falsely (and ridiculously) assumed that the term "brainwashing" is undefinable. 

 

Hardly a logical argument, going around declaring words other people use "undefinable", now is it?

Rather than using syllogisms to persuade, you would use force. This is exactly the tactic used by collectivists all over the world to have their way.

Association fallacy. Collectivists use force, you want to use force, ergo you're a collectivist. I suppose I'm a rabbit too. Rabbits have hair, and so do I.

Guess who else has hair: people. Guess who else uses force: Objectivists. Objectivism proudly advocates the use of force to protect individual rights, including those of children.

If you still believe that I have committed a 'logical' fallacy, please identity the precise one and exactly how I have made it. Even if I have not made a formal but rather an informal fallacy, I would still like to know.

By my count, you're up to four: the argument from intimidation ("worst kind of collectivism", the slippery slope one, the argument from association, and then there's the one where you randomly decided that a word I used is "undefinable".

Not sure what this last one is called. Might not even have a name. These informal fallacies were listed and named to help people recognize errors. But does anyone really need help figuring out why declaring words an opponent used as "undefinable" is not a valid argument?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Nicky

[Nicky]

One parent's "teaching", is another's "brainwashing", and if the distinction cannot be sufficiently and consistently defined, it is impractical  (so,.immoral) to uphold it above parents' rights .

As for dissenting philosophies, is it incumbent on Objectivist parents to teach, say, Buddhism to their child?

Straw man. I never suggested that parents have an obligation to teach their children anything.

What I said was that they shouldn't be allowed to lock them in the basement and read the Bible (or Atlas Shrugged) to them over and over again until they turn 18.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Nicky

[aleph_1]

Nicky,

 

None of those are logical fallacies. Do you know what a logical fallcy is?

[aleph_1]

Repairman,

 

Things are getting a little far removed from the OP in this thread so I don't want to respond to everything that has been said. I only want to say that you should not confuse my position with "compromising with evil". My position is that we should identify bad behavior (by anyone), publicly evaluate it, try to correct what we can, and then move on.

[Repairman]

Fair enough. Please don't take it as an accusation, rather a rhetorical question.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm an atheist (though I am not affiliated with any atheist organization and I often find myself rooting for men of faith against some of the more militant atheist groups).

I've noticed men of faith on this site and I'd like to confirm who you are and also, if you consider yourself an Objectivist, give you a chance to explain how faith and Objectivism are compatible.

 

First off, the compatability of either/or comparisons, e.g., faith or reason, is fairly limited in terms of identifying oneself as a man of faith vs a man of reason.  One can appreciate religion as an early form of philosophy, as did Ayn Rand, without abandoning reason.  But there is no compatibility between faith and reason, as the former becomes irrelevant for what the latter sufficiently accounts for; specifically, if one knows God, one needn't have faith in God.

 

Faith is at best the assertion of what one suspects is true, i.e., firm belief.  For example, one can have faith that previously unknown objects of reality will be discovered without knowing what those objects are in advance.  My view is that the reality of God has yet to be discovered, but I have faith that something like God, or Nature's God (for want of a better name) exists, and I maintain this faith without relying on it to balance my checkbook.

 

However where areas of compatability are limited, areas of mutual interest are plentiful, especially in the political realm.  I identify myself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal, and as such very much appreciate Ayn Rand's promotion of capitalism, aversion to altruism and desire to limit government intervention to matters of security.  Beyond that, I consider ones view of man as a heroic being, or the son of God to be primarily a matter of personal taste.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Repairman]

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?