Can Objectivism Go Hand-in-hand With Religion/other Philosophies?

[Linkara]

Greetings all! Just registered and still a relative newcomer to Objectivism. I first learned about it through the comic works of Steve Ditko (Blue Beetle and the Question) and found myself intrigued and agreeing with many of the things Ayn Rand wrote about, particularly when it came to Capitalism, individual rights, and the ideal human being. However, I cannot throw myself in completely with the Objectivist philosophy, which got me thinking about a few things.

There are certainly more than enough Christians who use their religion in terrible ways, just as there are with any other religion. However, on the flip-side there are just as many religious people who do good things as a result of that religion and their beliefs. I am firmly in the category of Christian, although its difficult to pin down if I actually have a denomination that I associate myself with. Subsequently, as a result of this, there is a kind of "pick and choose" attitude associated with it, i.e. I find nothing wrong with homosexuality nor do I believe that God condemns them to hell, nor do I believe that God consistantly controls human beings and/or causes their deaths. My own form of rationalism says that an all-powerful and all-knowing entity like God is more than capable of forseeing every possible outcome resulting from the individual, free choices of the people on earth and can subsequently adapt his own larger plans for the world to work with the new things occurring. ^_~

Nextly, I associate myself primarily in conservative political groups (I'm just going to get flamed to death for all this, ain't I? ^_~), agreeing with the ideas of smaller government, intervention in formerly-totalitarian countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and lower taxes in order to enable a free market to flourish. But I do disagree with the majority of American Conservatives on issues like the Death Penalty or, as stated above, gay marriage. However, since I can still agree with the majority of their tennents, I'm more than willing to associate myself as one of them.

Now on to the actual questioning part of this. Bearing all this in mind, is it possible to still be an objectivist but not agree with everything Ayn Rand wrote about? Can one be an Objectivist and a Christian? Is it possible to have a sort of "pick and choose" attitude with some of the Objectivist philosophies and integrate other philosophies into the mix, but be close enough to most of the original conceptions to still call oneself an Objectivist? Now, I'm inclined to say yes due to my previous experiences listed above, as well as with Rationalists like Descartes or Spinoza (not in Spinoza's actual philosophies, I really hate those, I just like the way he lays them out all mathematically and such, makes it extraordinarily easy to read) or Empiricists like George Berkeley or John Locke. I can agree with them on certain points and, as such, one could either call me an Empiricit or a Rationalist based on those beliefs.

In the words of Joel Hodgson, what do you think, sirs?

Edited June 11, 2006 by Linkara

[Maarten]

Your disagreement with Objectivism lies at a very critical place, though. It's very different from disagreeing about some particular application, because you reject the primacy of existence, and disagree about the role of consciousness. It has very major implications whether you think you can change what is with your consciousness, or not. I don't think you've said this, but I don't see the point in accepting God's existence if he cannot change anything about what is, or created existence in some way.

These issues in turn have implications for epistemology, as you may find yourself abandon reason to faith just when you need it most. It has never solved anyone's troubles to think that just because they want something really badly, they can change reality, but this is exactly what the existence of god "proves" is possible. I mean, if one type of consciousness can do it, then there's really no reason to think why others cannot do it as well.

[Linkara]

Yeah, I only touched upon my theodicy involving God's relationship with earth, humans, his interactions therein. If you want to I can go into it.

As for abadoning reason for faith, it's true that I could certainly do so, but I am of a kind who believes reason and faith don't need to be mutually exclusive sometimes (of course there are situations where either one must disregard faith in order to think rationally or vice versa). As for one type of consciousness being able to do it then why not another, I'll have to bring up Descartes in the idea that humans aren't necessarily capable of the same infinite consciousness that God is because human beings are finite (forgive me if my statements seem really simplistic, it's 4 AM and it's not a good idea to be thinking of philosophical statements at this time when one is trying to get himself to go to bed).

[Maarten]

How do you determine when to use reason and when to use faith, then? If, as you say, they can go hand in hand you must have an idea of when you use faith and when you use reason. Could you explain how you approach this?

[Linkara]

(And here I go again, staying up to answer the question instead of using my reason which is yelling at me to go to bed. ^_~)

Most of the time it's pretty much a case-by-case basis. Let me try to bring up some examples. Please forgive me if these examples don't cut the mustard, as I said - 4 AM and trying to think of good ones.

Say, for instance, that a man walked up to me and said that God had spoken to him and he willed, by divine command, that I should abandon my current job and join a Priesthood. Now, this is where I have a partial combination of faith and reason. My personal faith is that God does not directly speak with anyone, nor would he actively command me to do such a radical change in my life without allowing for my free choice to come to that decision on my own. As such, my reason tells me that this man is either lying or he is delusional. Subsequently, I rationalize that I should continue on my current path and not listen to the words of some stranger who accosted me.

Now, in a situation of pure reason, say I was attend a math course and for some reason, the Professor tells us that 2+2=5. Mathematics is pure, reasonable fact. One cannot get five by adding two and two together. Reason leads me to a series of conclusions that is independent of faith - I need no faith or belief to know that 2+2=4, it's a rational conclusion based on facts before me (well, a priori knowledge, technically, but I can reasonably conclude that 2+2 does not equal 5 based on the fact of 2+2=4).

As another example of pure reason, I can, through reason, argue that I have some existence. While it is perfectly possible that I might be some brain stored in a jar that some demonic spirit is toying with for his own amusement, even in that situation I MUST exist, because deception cannot occur in something that is not real, it'd be like trying to deceive the nonexistant person standing next to me - it can't be done. This is independent of any faith-based issue, I don't HAVE to believe that the reality I see is real or not or have any faith relating to it, I just need to know that I exist because I am capable of being deceived.

Faith alone example are easy enough to come by. Whether it be in the tingling of the back of one's spine that could occur if one knows they're alone yet feels a presence watching them and having belief in that or having the faith that my prayer might indulge God into sending one of his angels to facilitate some action that I would hope would be done, whether it be in aiding myself or others.

[Groovenstein]

Bearing all this in mind, is it possible to still be an objectivist but not agree with everything Ayn Rand wrote about?

Yes. Not everything about which Ayn Rand wrote constitutes Objectivism. Others are better able to articulate the reasons for this than I am am, but the basic distinction is between philosophy and specialized science. Rand's view that reason is man's sole means of cognition is part of the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand's views about a woman President are not.

There is a thread on here discussing what it means to be an "Objectivist." You may find it helpful to read that thread and address it.

Can one be an Objectivist and a Christian?

No. Christianity and Objectivism are opposed in many fundamental respects. For example, Christianity holds that one can acquire knowledge through faith and revelation. Objectivism rejects that completely, and holds that reason is the sole means of acquiring knowledge.

but I am of a kind who believes reason and faith don't need to be mutually exclusive sometimes

Reason and faith are mutually exclusive at all times. They are incompatible. Faith is believing something in the absence of or despite reason. What reasons do you have for thinking that the two are compatible?

[Maarten]

That's not what I mean, though. If something happens to you, how do you choose whether to base your actions on faith or reason? Do you use faith when your reason fails you, normally?

[Inspector]

Now on to the actual questioning part of this. Bearing all this in mind, is it possible to still be an objectivist but not agree with everything Ayn Rand wrote about?

That depends on what you mean. If you mean absolutely everything that Ayn Rand wrote about, then that would include all kinds of things that aren't a part of the philosophy of Objectivism. She may have once written about her favorite food once, for instance.

If, however, you mean "Is it still possible to be an Objectivist but not agree with every aspect of the philosophy of Objectivism," then no. You could be an admirer of Objectivism but you would not be an Objectivist. This is a very strict point.

That said, you are encouraged to look around and see just how much you have to admire. We might even change your mind.

[Bold Standard]

No. Christianity and Objectivism are opposed in many fundamental respects. For example, Christianity holds that one can acquire knowledge through faith and revelation. Objectivism rejects that completely, and holds that reason is the sole means of acquiring knowledge.

Reason and faith are mutually exclusive at all times. They are incompatible. Faith is believing something in the absence of or despite reason. What reasons do you have for thinking that the two are compatible?

See, here's the thing that gets some people though. Christianity is not a philosophical system. It is a religion-- and as such, represents a predecessor to philosophy, inasmuch as it's an attempt to explain existence.

But there's no such thing as a consistent philosophy of "Christianity" that actually holds such and such view point. There are philosophies based on Christianity. But if you define "Christianity" as that which is represented in the writings of Jesus, or even more broadly in the Hebrew Bible/New Testament combo we have now-- it's too inconsistent, and equivocal to pin down to a specific view. Also, it's too inconsistent to live by-- and that is why Christians always have to "pick and choose" which elements of their religion to live by, and which to ignore or even explicitly reject, so that they can survive on Earth, or maybe even be a little happy.

What does it mean, to ask, "Can one be Objectivist, and believe in God?" Well, the first thing you have to do is define your terms. What is this "God"? Aquinas thought you can only say what God is not, but never what he is. Spinoza just used God as a kind of synonym for nature, and doesn't really get religious (as far as I'm aware) until he starts trying to explain Descartes "problem of interaction," and comes up with all kinds of crazy theories. And what is "faith"? How necessary is it? Do you believe, with Aquinas, that "the erring reason binds," in other words that reason is absolute, and by your nature you can not help but accept the conclusion your reason has led you to? Or do you believe with Augustine and Luther that reason is your worst enemy as a Christian?

It is very easy to develop ultimately opposite philosophical systems that are consistent with some conflicting aspects of religion, but a consistent philosophy can never be established on religion, because religion is almost by definition inconsistent-- when it approaches consistency, it becomes philosophy. So, in my opinion, the most essential question to ask here would be-- why live by an inconsistent, "grab bag" philosophy, when you can live consistently, on principles that you can trust (because you can validate them by reason)? Why tear apart your integrity and self image in a mad rush of expediency and emotional whims, when there is such a more sensible, efficient and effective alternative?

[hunterrose]

Welcome, Linkara

I first learned about it through the comic works of Steve Ditko (Blue Beetle and the Question)

sweet

There are certainly more than enough Christians who use their religion in terrible ways, just as there are with any other religion. However, on the flip-side there are just as many religious people who do good things as a result of that religion and their beliefs.

Interesting. Such as?

I find nothing wrong with homosexuality nor do I believe that God condemns them to hell, nor do I believe that God consistantly controls human beings and/or causes their deaths. My own form of rationalism says that an all-powerful and all-knowing entity like God is more than capable of forseeing every possible outcome resulting from the individual, free choices of the people on earth and can subsequently adapt his own larger plans for the world to work with the new things occurring.

Ah, good, you don't condemn sexuality on faith grounds. Is there any moral stance you do take on faith grounds?

Nextly, I associate myself primarily in conservative political groups (I'm just going to get flamed to death for all this, ain't I? ^_~)

Nah, I think most people here, given an either/or choice would consider themselves more conservative than liberal.

Is it possible to still be an objectivist but not agree with everything Ayn Rand wrote about? Can one be an Objectivist and a Christian?

I can agree with [Empiricism and Rationalism] on certain points and, as such, one could either call me an Empiricit or a Rationalist based on those beliefs.

Sneaky, you used both "objectivist" and "Objectivist"

Depending on how it's defined, "objectivist" refers to a looser framework of ideas, similar to "Empiricist." There a whole lot that could be subsumed under "objectivist", whereas "Objectivist" has much more specific conditions as a title.

[DavidOdden]

Objectivism has a very specific reference, namely the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The various elements that make up Objectivism are an integrated package -- you cannot mix pieces of different philosophies to come up with a "kind" of Objectivism. Of course you can reject Objectivism outright and believe in god or the flying spaghetti monster or whatever you want. You will no doubt find similarities between some aspect of Objectivism and another philosophy, but ultimately there will be a contradiction between Objectivism and those other philosophies. For example, many people seem to be attracted to Objectivism for political reasons, but they can't accept the epistemology. The problem that they face is that they don't end up with a coherent political view -- they can't handle the tough questions when it comes to individual rights, since they only have grasped a fixed set of concrete rights, and no general principles, which allow them to apply Objectivist philosophy to novel circumstances.

As a religious person (as others have told you), there is an intractable conflict between your acceptance of the supernatural and the reality-based philosophy Objectivism. Objectivism fundamentally rejects contradiction, which is why mix-and-match philosophy isn't going to work. Reason and faith are always mutually exclusive.

I suggest focusing on Objectivist epistemology, especially with your mind focused on this question: "Why do I believe in god?". If, at the end of the examination you understand how irrational that belief is and you say "I don't have a reason, I just do," then I suggest that you really don't have a connection to Objectivism, and perhaps "conservative" really is the better label for you.

[JMeganSnow]

Can one be an Objectivist and a Christian?

In a word, no. You're free to be a Christian who has adopted some Objectivist ideas, but being an Objectivist means accepting the entire framework of Objectivism, and Objectivism is an atheist philosophy.

That being said, I challenge your assumption that some Christians do "good", motivated by Christianity. What is the good? How do you know it?

[Groovenstein]

If, at the end of the examination you understand how irrational that belief is and you say "I don't have a reason, I just do," then I suggest that you really don't have a connection to Objectivism, and perhaps "conservative" really is the better label for you.

Being the eternal optimist that I am, I'd like to point out that if you understand how irrational the belief is and you say "I don't have a reason, so I can't really hold on to this anymore," then I suggest that you could benefit by reading some more Rand. There are threads on here as well as lists online that have suggested reading orders.

Of course you can reject Objectivism outright and believe in god or the flying spaghetti monster or whatever you want.

You mean the flying spaghetti monster isn't real?? Next you're going to tell me there's no Santa Claus.

[Linkara]

Sorry about the long post, trying to address everything. @_@

@ Groovenstein: Reason can be used to create deductive proof about how I believe there is an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. Now, mind you that this is not ACTUAL proof, it's DEDUCTIVE proof. That is where the reasoning ends and faith begins, assigning actions and names associated with the all-powerful entity, in this case God. This is another way of how I think reason and faith can work together. Reason gets me to the first step and faith helps me get to the next.. Mind you, one could also reason that there wasn't an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, and that's where I sometimes find problems with embracing reason and rejecting faith - the fact that reason can lead to different conclusions from different people or that reason is used to, say, what the best method is for arranging tables in a coffee house.

I'm also an eternal optimist. ^_~ That's how I believe that they need not be mutually exclusive. As for the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Clause... Well, here's the thing - I believe in an invisible man who lives up in the clouds and gave his only begotten son to die for our sins, so why not aliens, ghosts, Santa Clause, and the flying spaghetti monster? ^_~ (Okay, I will reason that there's probably a better explanation for all of these things ahead of time, but I won't disregard them outright until I see the facts before me)

@Maarten: Sometimes, yes, if my reason fails me, I have to appeal to what I consider a "greater" reason and hope that I can find guidance there, through faith.

@Inspector: Yeah, I didn't mean everything she wrote about literally, I was referring just to the Objectivist sutff. ^_~ As for your answer of no, then, I must ask a question and please forgive me if this sounds critical or anything, I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to address a point: Christianity and many religions are sometimes criticized for their beliefs that salvation can only occur through grace alone (by grace, I mean in the case of Christianity, that one cannot be saved unless one accepts Jesus as their savior and becomes a Christian. I do not personally believe that the only way to salvation is grace, but let's get on with the question). Now, this is different for Objectivism because it's not an outright organization or religion, but a philosophical system, but isn't it slightly hypocritical (again, NOT trying to start a flame war or an argument) to chastise religions for that argument of salvation by grace and then say that one cannot be an Objectivist unless they believe every aspect of the Objectivist philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote?

@Bold Standard: Considering part of Objectivism is the idea of no group rights (and I'm taking a bold leap here), only individual rights, could we not take a step forward and say there is no group thought or consistant belief? Taking that in mind, religion for each individual within a group has its own separate consistency, how each of them tackle the inconsistencies of their religion and make sense out of it (like I have with my Christianity). Cannot religion's consistancy then be founded in each individual's ability to make consistency of it?

As the inconsistency in the bible, this is another place where my reason kicks in to aide my faith. My understanding of the bible is not that it is the divine, absolute word of God, but it was written by many men over centuries by different people. While I doubt that any of them had direct contact with God, they may have been inspired by what they saw in either the old testament or by involvement with Jesus in the New Testament to get their writings down. Ultimately, the problem is still multiple writers with different books and their own unique viewpoint and memory of the event. Reason tells me, then, that I must use my ethics and moral standards, what I know through my belief of right and wrong, to tell me what I should agree with and what I should discard. As such, my "grab bag" philosophy doesn't destroy my self-image or my integrity.

(Makes note for another philosophical discussion in another thread: Why is it the common belief that emotion = irrational?)

@hunterrose: If you want me to dig up actual, specific examples of it, I'll try to do so for you. On a general level, I'd say people who have a religious belief that says to help people incapable of helping themselves either through some type of church outreach program, missionaries who go to 3rd world nations in order to help the local communities (these do not necessarily have to also spread the religion, it just has to HELP the people). Now, one argument against this can be then that they're not doing good out of a voluntary will but instead simply out of religious devotion and that they wouldn't do it if they didn't have that religion to tell them to do so, but I would reply that since people are given the ability to make choices for themselves, they should be more than capable of deciding whether or not they wish to give up time they could be using for other productive methods of benefiting themselves to help others. It is ultimately still their choice.

As for taking a moral stance based on faith grounds... that's a very good question. And I'll tell you why that's a very good question. During last year's fall semester, I got into an argument with some classmates of mine on the subject of whether or not ethics and morality are subjective (i.e. that ideas like "right" and "wrong" exist only from the perspective of the individual and they don't really exist outside of it). I believed that there had to be something indepedent of our own viewpoints that states right and wrong exist, but I couldn't use Christianity's ultimate examples of God and the Devil to back me up, since one could easily argue back that one's religion is also a subjective viewpoint. As such, the next semester when the issue came up again in my Modern Philosophy class (When we were discussing the rationalists), I embarked on a three-week quest of self-reasoning to try to come up with arguments that supported my claim independent of faith or personal viewpoints. As such, I finally came up with a reasoned, deductive proof that there was such a thing as good and evil (now, bear in mind - I did not ASSIGN anything to the categories. I simply proved that the two existed). In fact, I'm planning on posting the paper here soon in order to get some assistance in finding any flaws in my arguments or more support for the thesis.

Now, back to your original question. I suppose, then, because of all of this, it is hard for me to find specific morality that's established in my religion, then, that I would take a stance on. What I suppose a moral stance I would take is that God is in some way responsible for any terrible thing that occurs on earth, like a natural catastrophe or an act of evil committed by man. My Christianity tells me that God does not force people to do one thing or another, nor does he kill people.

And actually, it wasn't deliberate when I used "objectivist" and "Objectivist." ^^;; I was trying to capitalize them all as a proper noun, but I missed it sometimes. Thanks for bringing it up, though, I have seen that the forum's been having some discussion of objectivism vs. Objectivism.

@DavidOdden: I think I addressed what you were saying in some of the above paragraphs.

@JMeganSnow: I also think I addressed your stuff in the above paragraphs.

[aequalsa]

@Inspector: Yeah, I didn't mean everything she wrote about literally, I was referring just to the Objectivist sutff. ^_~ As for your answer of no, then, I must ask a question and please forgive me if this sounds critical or anything, I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to address a point: Christianity and many religions are sometimes criticized for their beliefs that salvation can only occur through grace alone (by grace, I mean in the case of Christianity, that one cannot be saved unless one accepts Jesus as their savior and becomes a Christian. I do not personally believe that the only way to salvation is grace, but let's get on with the question). Now, this is different for Objectivism because it's not an outright organization or religion, but a philosophical system, but isn't it slightly hypocritical (again, NOT trying to start a flame war or an argument) to chastise religions for that argument of salvation by grace and then say that one cannot be an Objectivist unless they believe every aspect of the Objectivist philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote?

The primary reason that complete belief is a sticking point is that Rand stated that "Objectivism" is the name she chose to describe her personal philosophy. So if you are "an Objectivist" like she is, then you accept it in whole, by definition. Otherwise, the term "student of Objectivism" might be more accurate. It is my estimation that most people that descibe themselves as objectivists would more accurately be considered students of objectivism. I believe that, since it is a fully integrated set of beliefs, when you study more you either come to accept more and more of it or less and less of it.

In your case for example, as you develop a more thorough understanding of objectivist epistomology and metaphysics, you will come to places where you will see that to believe in and live by reason necessarily conflicts with living by faith. When you run into those contradictions you will choose one way or the other, but something will have to be rejected. Which will, of course, move you one way or the other. If you move more towards reason(which I recommend as a general rule) you will find at a certain point that you disagree with precious little and then might qualify for the title, if that's the right word. So it is not so much a matter of excommunication, or inclusion vs. exclusion, as it is accuracy and honesty of term use.

From what you have written you seem to be honestly interested in answers to questions about objectivism and are framing your questions fairly. You have some knowledge of objectivism which you accept a lot of and you seem to wish to learn more. I think that you could consider yourself a padawa....err...I mean a student of Objectivism and few if any here would complain.

Best Regards,

Gordon

[Linkara]

The primary reason that complete belief is a sticking point is that Rand stated that "Objectivism" is the name she chose to describe her personal philosophy. So if you are "an Objectivist" like she is, then you accept it in whole, by definition. Otherwise, the term "student of Objectivism" might be more accurate. It is my estimation that most people that descibe themselves as objectivists would more accurately be considered students of objectivism. I believe that, since it is a fully integrated set of beliefs, when you study more you either come to accept more and more of it or less and less of it.

In your case for example, as you develop a more thorough understanding of objectivist epistomology and metaphysics, you will come to places where you will see that to believe in and live by reason necessarily conflicts with living by faith. When you run into those contradictions you will choose one way or the other, but something will have to be rejected. Which will, of course, move you one way or the other. If you move more towards reason(which I recommend as a general rule) you will find at a certain point that you disagree with precious little and then might qualify for the title, if that's the right word. So it is not so much a matter of excommunication, or inclusion vs. exclusion, as it is accuracy and honesty of term use.

From what you have written you seem to be honestly interested in answers to questions about objectivism and are framing your questions fairly. You have some knowledge of objectivism which you accept a lot of and you seem to wish to learn more. I think that you could consider yourself a padawa....err...I mean a student of Objectivism and few if any here would complain.

Best Regards,

Gordon

"Student of Objectivism..."

Yeah, I like that. Just don't expect me to call you Master Aequalsa. ^_~

In any case, yeah, I definitely agree that there are going to be some points where I'll make the choice of the path of reason or faith. I just keep pressing on the idea that the paths may intersect again later and I may go off on a different path before meeting once again. But yeah, I like how you described the term and how one has to be an Objectivist, then. ^^

[DavidOdden]

Groovenstein: Reason can be used to create deductive proof about how I believe there is an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that created the universe. Now, mind you that this is not ACTUAL proof, it's DEDUCTIVE proof.

A deductive proof is an actual proof, but a fundamental characteristic of one is that you have to have true premises. What premises do you start from that leads you to deduce the existence of a deity? I can't imagine what could lead you to reason that there is a god, except if you conclude "I don't see how this could be, and I must understand how it could be, so I therefore claim that there is a god that explains this problem". The alternative, of course, is to say "So I guess there is something I don't understand".

but isn't it slightly hypocritical (again, NOT trying to start a flame war or an argument) to chastise religions for that argument of salvation by grace and then say that one cannot be an Objectivist unless they believe every aspect of the Objectivist philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote?

I don't see the relationship. The objection to religion is simply that (1) god doesn't exist so claim that he does is just wrong and (2) god is contradictory so elieving in him is irrational. Hence the concept of salvation is invalid. It wouldn't matter if the religion held that salvation comes via divine grace or good works. A better analogy would be that a person who rejects papal infallibility, purgatory, payment for sin, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cannot claim to be a Roman Catholic. Similarly, a conservative cannot believe in the welfare state, expanding government power, and social engineering as the function of government -- that's the definition of a liberal (however: a neo-con can believe in those things as long as they are religious, that being the only essential characteristic of the neo-con movement).

[Linkara]

I disagree that deductive proof = actual proof. Deductive proof is having a group of facts or statements and drawing a conclusion on them, like this:

1. The photograph is in color.

2. The photograph features the sky.

3. The color of the sky in the picture is blue.

THEREFORE: The color of the sky is blue.

Now, if I had never seen the sky before but I knew it existed, I'd deduce that this was accurate, but it wouldn't be actual proof until I saw the real sky to see whether my conclusion was correct or not. Until I die, I won't know with absolute proof whether or not there is a God. My deductive proof comes from a number of sources, but it's not actual proof since it's only a conclusion that I came to. Here is one such proof from the book "Sherlock's Logic" by William Neblett:

First Assumption: The universe, though fragmented in myriads of parts and replete with an extraordinary variety, nevertheless exhibits a remarkable structural design.

Second Assumption: A machine too is fragmented in parts, has variety, and yet reveals the imprint of a structural design.

Third assumption: A Machine is made by an intelligent being.

And finall the conclusion: The universe too was made by an intelligent being, and namely, that being we call 'God.'"

Again, this is not actual proof and one could easily tear apart this argument if one wanted to, but it makes sense to me so I'm not going to disregard it just yet. As for the "not understanding" argument, isn't it part of rationalism that reason can explain everything, so there should be anything that "can't be understood?" ^_~ (*Hopes he doesn't start a flame war with that statement...*)

Edited June 11, 2006 by Linkara

[DavidOdden]

I disagree that deductive proof = actual proof. Deductive proof is having a group of facts or statements and drawing a conclusion on them, like this:

I don't understand what you mean by "proof", then. There is a broad concept, "validation" which includes "proof", and there are two kinds of proof, inductive and deductive proof. Either kind of proof is an "actual" proof. But your photo example is not in fact a deductive proof. An example would be

All men are mortals

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

There are rules for constructing deductive proofs, and your example doesn't follow them. You could fix it by restating it:

1. The photograph is in color.

2. The photograph features the sky.

3. Any photograph exactly reproduces the color of all objects featured in them.

4. The color of the sky in the picture is blue.

THEREFORE: The color of the sky is blue.

This is a proper deduction (classically, though not in a system that requires all premises to be valid), though it depends on the invalid assumption 3. As I said in my previous post, a deductive proof is a proof, but it depends on some premises and validating those premises is non-trivial. In fact, deductive logic is of relatively little practical use for gaining knowledge, and all of the word is really done by induction. The god-proof that you offer is not a proof of any kind: it's a set of unproven assumptions which require invalid leaps. It might actually be useful for you to get a bit more familiar with formal logic and the nature of proof.

There are many flaws in the god proof you give which preclude its being a proof in any sense. WRT the first assumption, this assumption depends on the undefined notion "fragmented", as applied to the universe, and also presupposes the existence of god by asserting that it has a "design". This is know as "begging the question". The second assumption has those flaws, plus it is vague in referring uncertainly to "all machines" vs. "some machine", and it equally presupposes and does not state explicitly a defininition of "machine. The third assumption has most of the preceding flaws (for example, does it say that some machine has a designer or that all machines do). A virus could be called a machine; however, most viruses do not have designers. So that isn't really a proof of any kind. It is simply a parody of a proof, which expands the fundamental premise that is simply accepted on religious faith: "Because the universe appears complex, God must have created the universe". Of course I reject that statement as lacking in support, but it at least doesn't purport to be a proof.

As for the "not understanding" argument, isn't it part of rationalism that reason can explain everything, so there should be anything that "can't be understood?"

Yes, I think that is correct. BTW you probably don't know this, but Objectivism vehemetly rejects rationalism. Note that there is a huge difference between "can be understood" and "is understood". Rationalism is wrong because it holds that by sheer will power, you can gain knowledge. Rationalism thus holds that it is a mental weakness to not create an understanding of any given problem; in contrast, Objectivism holds that man is not omniscient, and that while no fact of existence is in principle beyond his grasp, at any given stage of existence, we do not know all facts of reality (and therefore do not need to invent arbitrary explanations that substitute for an actual grasp of reality).

[Linkara]

Yeah, I should have included your statement 3 in my original proof there. ^^;; Sometimes when I write these things out I forget that I have to explain EVERYTHING even if, by definition, it's built into what one of the items in question is.

And, as I said, the God proof isn't perfect and does contain more than a few flaws, but it is logical to me and I do believe it to be true through my own reason. I didn't originally write it, it was part of the book I stated, so maybe one should rewrite it to better match some of the fallacies you addressed. ^_~

BTW you probably don't know this, but Objectivism vehemetly rejects rationalism. Note that there is a huge difference between "can be understood" and "is understood". Rationalism is wrong because it holds that by sheer will power, you can gain knowledge. Rationalism thus holds that it is a mental weakness to not create an understanding of any given problem; in contrast, Objectivism holds that man is not omniscient, and that while no fact of existence is in principle beyond his grasp, at any given stage of existence, we do not know all facts of reality (and therefore do not need to invent arbitrary explanations that substitute for an actual grasp of reality).

Since, then, you have admitted that Objectivism does not know all the facts of reality, would you be willing to admit that it is possible that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing deity that COULD be the explanation for those sectors that we do not understand? ^_~

And thanks for explaining about Objectivism vs. Rationalism, I had been kind of foggy about the relationship between the two. ^^;;

[Zephyr Delta]

As I see it, there very well could be a God. Based on the knowledge that we have at the current moment, however, one can not make the rational claim that such a deity exists; furthermore, they can not prove it. Though I am somewhat new to Objectivism, it appears to me that Objectivists hate religion and other faith-based ideas. They don't have any problem, however, with the possibility of there being a God based on knowledge not currently known to man.

[RationalBiker]

Since, then, you have admitted that Objectivism does not know all the facts of reality, would you be willing to admit that it is possible that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing deity that COULD be the explanation for those sectors that we do not understand? ^_~

Oh man, this is almost straight out of "Kissing Frank's Ass". LOL

There is no purpose in "admitting" something "could" exist for which there is NO evidence to speculate it's existence to begin with. Existence itself is NOT evidence of something having been "created". It would be equally fruitful to "admit" that the universe was pooped out of the behind of a Giant Purple Space Goat because although there is no evidence that it's true, there is no evidence yet to say it can't be true either. So you can continue ad naseum inserting entities into your theory because there is no proof that any other possibly concieveable entity couldn't have done the same thing as the particular one you have arbitrarily chosen to have faith in.

[Groovenstein]

They don't have any problem, however, with the possibility of there being a God based on knowledge not currently known to man.

Yes they do, because it's arbitrary. You need some evidence to even suggest something as a possibility. "Anything is possible" is not evidence. Therefore, any attempt to prove that God might exist on the theory that "anything is possible" must be rejected as arbitrary.

And, as I said, the God proof isn't perfect and does contain more than a few flaws, but it is logical to me and I do believe it to be true through my own reason.

If you think God's existence can be proven using reason, why mention faith at all?

[Zephyr Delta]

Couldn't it be argued to an extent that Christianity does have some amount of proof backing it up? Albeit, weak and shaky proof, and not enough to prove it, but certainly there's more logical evidence for the idea of a God (as described by Christianity) then for the idea of a Giant Purple Space Goat.

I won't bother with creating a list, but to throw a few points out:

-In all non-Christian records of Jesus' timeperiod, there are exactly 11 mentions of Jesus' name, and exactly 11 mentions of the Roman emperor's name who reigned during that timeperiod. No one questions the existence of that Roman emperor; why then its Jesus' existence questioned?

-The Bible.

Everything listed above is weak, shaky proof that doesn't actually prove anything. However, from what I've studied, Christianity's ideas of there being a God seem to have a tad bit more logical support than other faiths/ideas. Certainly you could create your own weak, yet somewhat logical reasons for the existence of a Giant Purple Space Goat. However, the idea of a Christian God has enough logical support that I'm willing to consider speculation. Not that I speculate on such matters myself, but I'm not going to condemn someone immediately for speculating on the possibility of a Christian God.

Then again, what constitutes as enough proof to consider an upper deity? That, I cannot define. The idea of a Christian God has more logical evidence supporting it than the Space Goat theory, but does that mean it has enough? Truth be told, I don't see a reason to bother defining such boundaries of "enough proof" solely for the reason of speculation.

Ignore the rambling, I'm just trying to get my thoughts in writing, so that I can make sense of them.

EDIT: In other words, I agree with Groovenstein now. This is my first interaction with other Objectivists, so I expected some amount of stumbling through ideas.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Zephyr Delta

[Groovenstein]

Couldn't it be argued to an extent that Christianity does have some amount of proof backing it up? Albeit, weak and shaky proof, and not enough to prove it, but certainly there's more logical evidence for the idea of a God (as described by Christianity).

To prove the existence of God (or anything, for that matter), you must first define "God." What is "God"? Provide the best definition you can. Otherwise, any other discussion is rather silly (simply substitute "Hlsjeidusy" for "God").