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

[Devil's Advocate]

Not in areas where faith is blind to objective reality, which atheists will claim excludes pretty much everything.  However God needn't be supernatural to know all that is knowable or do all that is doable in a finite universe; fallible beings simply need more time to evolve their abilities.  So where an atheist will view expanding knowledge as reducing the likelihood of God, it can also be viewed as increasing the likelihood of becoming godlike.  It's all about self improvement.

[Skylab72]

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.

Now this is a challenge I can sink my teeth into. Thanks Repairman for the succinct question. I wish my answer could be as succinct.

 

Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. The identity property reigns supreme.

I admit to agreeing with Ms. Rand's epistemology and philosophy more than any other I have come across. But I am also a self described "theist". I am therefore one of your targets for this query.

 

Begin at the bottom. De Carte, "Cognito Ergo Sum". Think therefore AM. Not as is oft translated (not wholly incorrectly, context may imply the speaker) "I think therefore I am", more as, One who thinks, must from only that evidence Exist. DeCarte, as do many others, thought that irreducible. Other threads on this forum have tamped that turf hard enough to leave it at that.

 

I think. I perceive. I use mathematics to describe what I perceive. I stand on the shoulders of hundreds of years of Giants who have done the same. The scientific method is one of my most useful tools. I find however, that as useful as it may be, it always falls short. 

Mathematics has extended the range of our perceptions to the point we suspect the volume of our reality is expanding far faster than our species ability to explain. I/we turned to math to chart what to do, to define a system within reality which would be both consistent and complete. For two hundred years we worked on the problem. Then in the first quarter of the twentieth century, a young upstart in an elite German school, proved it could not be done. No finite system, can be both consistent and complete. In order to prove a system consistent one must prove it incomplete. In order to prove it complete, one must prove it inconsistent. It is no accident quantum theory also sprang from this era.

 

I have great confidence Reality (note the use of caps) was exposed in Gödel's completeness theorem. It took a while to absorb Kurt's work but when the implications became clear, thirty plus years of Agnosticism/Atheism melted away. Like many Rand fans I find it easier to deal only with what I know, and that certainly is useful, but there always comes a time when one has to deal with the unknown and the uncertain. I'd long believed man "invented" gods to explain the unknown. So here at last I had a concept worthy of the name. So my god became God, defined as, That System which is Infinite, Complete, Consistent, and Unary (The first two properties require subsuming all others).

 

So with this epiphany I went back to revisit all the "god literature" with my newfound conviction. Then I found Rand (again). (This next sentence is a long one, so wherever I say 'translation' think 'English translation') After visiting three translations of the protestant Bible, the approved translation of the Catholic Bible, the only translation of the Greek Orthodox Bible I could find, the Jefferson Bible, two translations of the Quran, two translations of the Torah, Three translations of the Bagivad Gita, twenty six translations of the Tao (it is short), eight English volumes purporting to be the teaching of Buddha, seven volumes focused on the teachings of Confucius, and three translations of The Five Rings, after all that, it was Rand who integrated it for me. "There are no contradictions. If you think you've found one, you have found either a faulty premise or a logical error.", Ayn Rand.  

 

When I simply took these works as a whole, and threw out all the contradictions (there are fewer than you might think), the remainder is a gold mine of pithy wisdom for living. Actually read the Jefferson Bible sometime, it is a national treasure. These works all said the same things, over and over.

 

It had long been my belief that all the earths mythology originated from the same urge, to explain the unknown in such a way as to promote behavior consistent with man's nature and promoting the welfare of the largest groups the authors of these myths could hope to convence. During this exercise I found nothing to dissuade that point of view, they all use the same concepts, and in many cases the same situations and constructs to reveal their truth. The difference with Rand was she just saw the results of the industrial 'revolution' before she set out to write, ( IMO more clearly than most.) and unlike the others she consciously avoided any argument except the logical one. But in every case, there are followers who morph and corrupt the teaching until much of it's Truth is obscured. So it shall be with Rand, given time it is inevitable.

 

The laws of physics however are not going away, Reality is Real, Existence Exists, and A is A. One hundred eighty six thousand miles per second is God's law. Thou shalt not steal is a natural consequence. It is hard for some folks to understand the difference. So let them bind what morality they can find, in terms they are comfortable with. To me God is Real, because the cosmos is unfolding as it should, not the other way around. Now as I struggle to grasp Grigori Perleman's work, I dream of building meaningful maps of the cosmos with it, so we can travel farther and learn even more, in order to survive both as individuals and as a species. We still struggle with the unknown because what you don't know, eventually, will kill you, you are finite. Reality is not. I stand before you, a theist objectivist. I have 'faith' in thousands of things I personally cannot prove, I stand on the shoulders of giants. I 'pray' because I find there are creative capabilities at my disposal triggered by visioning 'the world as it should be' under under an infinite sky. My God is an infinite N-dimensional manifold of three core properties that are weakly reflected in the three core equation sets defining the basic forces of the standard model, Strong Molecular, Weak Molecular, and Gravity. That is all I have to say about that, I am too stupid to go on.

[Repairman]

Skylab72: You are the man!

However, I'd have to take issue with Decarte's axiom. I could exist, without thinking. I've met many people who do not think, and yet, they exist. I exist, therefore I think...I think, thus is my convict. Anyway, that was as succinct an answer as any I could approve in simplest terms. An infinite range of possible knowledge, unknown and imposing a challenge before us, an ideal waiting for human understanding-is this your God?

Then, could we agree that god is the force of nature, and not at all supernatural?

[Devil's Advocate]

Strong work Skylab72

 

Skylab72: You are the man!

However, I'd have to take issue with Decarte's axiom. I could exist, without thinking. I've met many people who do not think, and yet, they exist. I exist, therefore I think...I think, thus is my convict. Anyway, that was as succinct an answer as any I could approve in simplest terms. An infinite range of possible knowledge, unknown and imposing a challenge before us, an ideal waiting for human understanding-is this your God?

Then, could we agree that god is the force of nature, and not at all supernatural?

 

I believe the Founders got it right by identifying God as Nature's God, delimiting God to reality.  The creation of stars, planets and life forms is a neat trick, but not a supernatural one, and the gap between God's ability (all knowing & all powerful) and our own (fallible) is narrowing;  we are becoming less fallible, and more godlike.  In terms of understanding and potential, I think of God as a moral compass towards an evolutionary goal, and not exclusively a human one.

 

The term supernatural is overused to describe things that go bump in the night.  A truly supernatural event would necessarily occur outside the scope of being able to witness, let alone understand.  A natural witness (so to speak) can only witness a natural God, i.e., Nature's God.

[Repairman]

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?

[softwareNerd]

It is not clear to me whether the concept of "god" described above ("nature's god") implies a consciousness or not. A traditional deist like Jefferson does not simply define "god" as all the stuff about nature that we do not yet know. No; to him, "god" is still a consciousness, and -- most importantly --man's reason can discover what this "god" considers to be right and wrong.

 

Using the concept of God to mean something that is of nature and is also not a consciousness describes a concept that has no actionable prescriptions for man (except the meta-prescription to try to discover more about nature).

 

If the "nature's god" described above is an attempt to remove even the little bit of consciousness from "Jefferson's god", it seems like a pretty useless concept. Worse still, it would be to use the term in a non-standard way, causing unnecessary confusion.

Edited January 8, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

 

I believe reverence for Nature's God is appropriate but not required, in the same manner that reverence for nature is appropriate to those who feel so inclined.  Not too long ago an Objectivist (perhaps a very tolerant one) once suggested reading the Bible by substituting all references to God with Nature, and that combined with Ayn Rand's statement about contradictions (cited by Skylab72 in post 52) makes sense in most, if not all cases.  I believe Locke also supported biblical reference where it didn't contradict reality.

 

As to being the one and only God, Skylab72 and I may share a faith in God but we (and almost everyone else) will draw different conclusions about God; mine, for example, is that God isn't a help desk, so I tend not to appleal to God for personal favors, favoring Franklin's advice that, "God helps those who help themselves."  I consider a jealous God to be about as worrisome as a jealous Nature, essentially meaning those who pursure contradictions will fare worse than those obey Nature, as advised by Bacon.

[Devil's Advocate]

It is not clear to me whether the concept of "god" described above ("nature's god") implies a consciousness or not. A traditional deist like Jefferson does not simply define "god" as all the stuff about nature that we do not yet know. No; to him, "god" is still a consciousness, and -- most importantly --man's reason can discover what this "god" considers to be right and wrong.

 

Using the concept of God to mean something that is of nature and is also not a consciousness describes a concept that has no actionable prescriptions for man (except the meta-prescription to try to discover more about nature).

 

If the "nature's god" described above is an attempt to remove even the little bit of consciousness from "Jefferson's god", it seems like a pretty useless concept. Worse still, it would be to use the term in a non-standard way, causing unnecessary confusion.

 

Agreed, to the degree that numerous consciences suggest parts of a greater whole, or a universal consciousness if you will.  What we can say is that consciousness depends on matter to exist, and there's nothing particularily unique about Earth's matter.  But to address the more thorny issue that divides theists from athiests, is God necessary?  Specifically what would go missing if God was substituted by recognizing Nature as the source of life??

 

I tend to agree with Voltaire's assertion that, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."  Self awareness leads to the awareness of other selves, and for many, an awareness of (or suspicion of) a greater self.  An unconscious Nature creates a vacuum, and as is said, Nature abhors a vacuum.  There, I think I've given you enough rope to hang myself with... 

[softwareNerd]

I tend to agree with Voltaire's assertion that, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."  Self awareness leads to the awareness of other selves, and for many, an awareness of (or suspicion of) a greater self.  An unconscious Nature creates a vacuum, and as is said, Nature abhors a vacuum.

I don't follow this argument. What is this vacuum? Is it a synonym for "stuff we do not yet know"? If so, this argument boils down to saying: "We cannot explain X, so we will assume it is caused by Y".

Now, as long a "Y" is just a synonym for "stuff we do not yet know", it is innocuous. Except that we're back to my previous post, of asking what purpose this serves.

Instead, it seems that Skylab and you are assuming "Y" is some consciousness. In other words, you 're saying "We cannot explain X, so we will assume it is caused by some consciousness that we do not yet know".

 

One can understand man making this hypothesis some centuries ago; but, I don't see how it is valid today. Today, this is a completely arbitrary hypothesis. 

 

And, if valid, it still raises the question of relevance. If we stop at assuming "some consciousness", and assume no more than that, we have nothing useful to do with that. The only way it can become something of use is to elaborate it into "some consciousness with some purpose that we glean and which can guide us -- or at least inspire us -- in some way". Doing this means one is simply building one arbitrary floor upon an already arbitrary foundation. 

 

It is basically a long-winded way of arriving at a subjective basis for action: i.e. "some consciousness has a reason or purpose...  .. which i can divine... at least to get some glimmer". It seems simpler to simply accept one's subjective feelings, rather than ascribing them to some arbitrarily-assumed consciousness, and then assuming that you should be doing the will of such a consciousness.

[Repairman]

It all seems to me that the God of Nature, such as Skylab and Devil's Advocate are describing, is a drastically reconstructed God, such as anything associated with any of the three or four major world religions. In fact, I would suggest that this God is more a matter of one's personal psychology, perhaps a helpful means by which one is comforted in times of distress, or deep meditation. But as softwareNerd pointed out, this God has not its own consciousness, nor plan for man, and serves only as a sort of a "place holder" for one's psychological needs. If man needs to create his own personal God, so be it. But I'm still not quite yet ready to concede that it passes for objective reality.

[softwareNerd]

... ... I would suggest that this God is more a matter of one's personal psychology, perhaps a helpful means by which one is comforted in times of distress, or deep meditation. 

True. Fantasy has its uses, but to be healthy it is important to know that fantasy is fantasy. 

Imaginary friends, war-games and day-dreams can be good or bad, depending on how one uses them; but, knowing they're fantasy is a start.

 

So, this "drastically reconstructed" god must always have the nature of fantasy rather than possibility, making him even more drastically reconstructed.

[Devil's Advocate]

... What is this vacuum? Is it a synonym for "stuff we do not yet know"? ... ~ softwareNerd

 

Not really.  We know consciousness exists and depends on matter to express itself, therefore existence preceeding consciousness is ordered correctly.  It follows then that any consideration of nature which omits whatever consciousness is embedded in it creates a vacuum, or a vacancy in whatever knowledge is derived from the study of nature.

 

... The only way it can become something of use is to elaborate it into "some consciousness with some purpose that we glean and which can guide us -- or at least inspire us -- in some way".  Doing this means one is simply building one arbitrary floor upon an already arbitrary foundation... ~ softwareNerd

 

Except that the foundation isn't arbitrary; the study of nature necessarily includes the study of consciousness.

 

... It is basically a long-winded way of arriving at a subjective basis for action: i.e. "some consciousness has a reason or purpose...  .. which i can divine... at least to get some glimmer". It seems simpler to simply accept one's subjective feelings, rather than ascribing them to some arbitrarily-assumed consciousness, and then assuming that you should be doing the will of such a consciousness... ~ softwareNerd

 

Does one exert Euclid's will by studying and applying geometry, or Aristotle's will for philosophy, or Ayn Rand's will for Objectivism??  In any case one retains the free will to choose whatever action is necessary to exert ones own will.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

... If man needs to create his own personal God, so be it. But I'm still not quite yet ready to concede that it passes for objective reality.

 

Nor should you as faith is no substitute for actual knowledge.  An existing concept for God is necessarily reconstructed by the expansion of knowledge, and the elimination of known contradictions.  An atheist may consider any contradiction worthy of dismissing the whole concept, whereas a theist may find consistent themes that remain viable.

[Devil's Advocate]

True. Fantasy has its uses, but to be healthy it is important to know that fantasy is fantasy. 

Imaginary friends, war-games and day-dreams can be good or bad, depending on how one uses them; but, knowing they're fantasy is a start.

 

So, this "drastically reconstructed" god must always have the nature of fantasy rather than possibility, making him even more drastically reconstructed.

 

Meh, I'd consider a God that has only been reconstructed in order to be dismissed as "drastically reconstructed".  I suppose the relavent question is, if God is equivalent to Santa Clause, why does God persist while Santa, et al., are understood to be fantasy?

[JASKN]

I suppose the relavent question is, if God is equivalent to Santa Clause, why does God persist while Santa, et al., are understood to be fantasy?

The scientific advancement that has unquestionably swept aside any notion of "God" is recent -- only 200 or so years. Comparatively, religion has been the go-to explanation for all modern civilizations since their beginnings. Most people don't question their upbringings much, and if they do they're facing a monumental task of changing their basic philosophic ideas.

How long has Santa Clause been around? Has he ever been used as a personal philosophy?

[JASKN]

An atheist may consider any contradiction worthy of dismissing the whole concept, whereas a theist may find consistent themes that remain viable.

If the theme really holds truth, it was not part of any contradiction.

[Devil's Advocate]

The scientific advancement that has unquestionably swept aside any notion of "God" is recent -- only 200 or so years. Comparatively, religion has been the go-to explanation for all modern civilizations since their beginnings. Most people don't question their upbringings much, and if they do they're facing a monumental task of changing their basic philosophic ideas.

How long has Santa Clause been around? Has he ever been used as a personal philosophy?

 

Generational length is somewhere between 20 & 30 years, say 25 for the sake of argument.  This means that about 8 generations have maintained the concept of God past the scientific expiration date.  Santa Claus has been around since the 13th century (perhaps earlier ?), and has been used to promote a philosophy of good will and generousity in spite of scientific knowledge that reindeers don't fly, and lack of discovery at the North Pole; yet the reality of Santa is commonly accepted as fictional, whereas God persists...

 

If the theme really holds truth, it was not part of any contradiction.

 

Agreed

 

Edited for spelling

Edited January 9, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[JASKN]

Well, we could theorize endlessly, which was the only option available to men until scientific advancement. Now, thankfully, we don't have to waste any more time entertaining ideas about The Divine.

[softwareNerd]

..., if God is equivalent to Santa Clause, why does God persist while Santa, et al., are understood to be fantasy?

Check your premise. Santa has never, ever been assumed to be real. 

Got some other line of reasoning?

[Devil's Advocate]

In terms of this topic, I think entertaining ideas about "The Divine" is appropriate to the discussion of understanding why Men of Faith (hate this label, but working with it) aren't necessarily put off from appreciating a philosophy that promotes atheism.  For example one could argue that Ayn Rand opens the door herself by presenting her philosophy as "the concept of man as a heroic being", supported by Aristotle (to whom being heroic implies Divine heritage and favor), along with references to Atlas (a Titan, no less).  It may be a stretch for a theist to find parallels between the "Son of God" and heroic beings, but there's certainly no reason to jettison historical religious philosophy altogether.  Such references point to superhuman (and not necessarily supernatural) ideals that remain relavent today.

 

And one can hope that some future philosophical theist will survive to dust off Objectivism one day if necessary, as Aquinas did for Aristotle and was subsequently praised by Ayn Rand for doing.  Remember those 3 A's...

[Devil's Advocate]

Check your premise. Santa has never, ever been assumed to be real. 

Got some other line of reasoning?

 

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/origin-of-santa/

[softwareNerd]

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/origin-of-santa/

In your mind that article shows that adult people believed Santa Claus is real?

Anyhow, the point is a incidental. Your argument boils down to: "lot's of people still believe in God". 

 

Seem to be going in circles here, with the repetition of this logical fallacy.

[Devil's Advocate]

In your mind that article shows that adult people believed Santa Claus is real?

Anyhow, the point is a incidental. Your argument boils down to: "lot's of people still believe in God". 

 

Seem to be going in circles here, with the repetition of this logical fallacy.

 

My effort was to respond to your question about the reality of historical figures embellished by myth and legend.  My argument boils down to, lot's of people who still have faith in God agree with Objectivist positions that aren't necessarily atheistic, e.g., laissez-faire capitalism.  I realize I'm on thin ice having drawn the attention of 2 Admins, so I'll leave it that I was first attracted to Objectivism by listening to and reading Ayn Rand, which I enjoyed and agreed with in spite of my particular faith.  It was some time before I realized how exclusive Objectivism is to atheists;  that message was delivered by those who followed her.

[JASKN]

My argument boils down to, lot's of people who still have faith in God agree with Objectivist positions that aren't necessarily atheistic, e.g., laissez-faire capitalism.

[...]

It was some time before I realized how exclusive Objectivism is to atheists;  that message was delivered by those who followed her.

Rand didn't emphasize atheism, and even said she wasn't arguing against atheism as much as arguing for her principles. So, it kind of makes sense that it passed your radar undetected. Still, she did elaborate about her views on religion. So, it also makes sense that her "followers" would bring those views to your attention if you're discussing her philosophy with them, and bringing up your faith. "That" message being brought to your attention, not being obvious to you personally beforehand, doesn't imply the validity of an ObjectiChristianty.

 

Just because you can dream it up doesn't mean it's true. Also, mass acceptance doesn't imply truth.

[aleph_1]

Skylab,

 

Let me preface my remarks by saying that in the context of this thread, you have made a valiant attempt. But,...

 

 

So my god became God, defined as, That System which is Infinite, Complete, Consistent, and Unary (The first two properties require subsuming all others)....My God is an infinite N-dimensional manifold of three core properties that are weakly reflected in the three core equation sets defining the basic forces of the standard model, Strong Molecular, Weak Molecular, and Gravity. That is all I have to say about that, I am too stupid to go on.

 

 

So which is it? The first implies that your God is not subject to logic. It is unclear that the second is possible since no unification between the general theory of relativity and quantum theory has been affirmed. Either way, your God is beyond any rational consideration.

 

 

 

When I simply took these works as a whole, and threw out all the contradictions (there are fewer than you might think), the remainder is a gold mine of pithy wisdom for living.

 

This is a rather convenient procedure. It is too easy to claim that you just throw out all the contradictions and use whatever remains to inform the good life. You have not specified what you have thrown out. What is more, it is not so much the logical contradictions in religious texts that are worrying--it is the content. I concede that it is possible to have a perfectly logically consistent religious (or non-religious) theory. Even so, that does not mean that such theories are remotely acceptable.

 

 

It had long been my belief that all the earths mythology originated from the same urge, to explain the unknown in such a way as to promote behavior consistent with man's nature and promoting the welfare of the largest groups the authors of these myths could hope to convence.

 

This is too sweeping and likely not true. The assertion is not well-founded.

 

Rather than go off on flights of fancy, citing famous names such as Decartes, Perelman and Godel, why not give your argument directly?

 

Finally, there is not god at all-ah. And I am this prophet.