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

[Linkara]

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

I should probably quit attaching "proof" to the end of "Deductive," since it seems to be creating a few problems. ^_~

Through my deduction and reasoning, I cannot PROVE God exists, I can only make speculative statements that would support the idea that God exists. It's not proof of anything about God, just that there is an existence to some entity that we would tend to identify as "God." Faith is where we take the leap and have to start believing certain things about him, who he is, where he is, how he works with earth, etc.

In any case, I think we're straying away from the original question, which is - is it possible to be an Objectivist and a Religious Practicer? If no, then there need be no more discussion. If yes, how?

[Zephyr Delta]

It seems in the rush or writing, I forgot to consider a principle I already knew to be true: that God himself would have to be defined, and that the proof I threw behind him would not agree with a logical definition. Thus, I can argue no further.

[DavidOdden]

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?

No, because if that were the case it would invalidate everything that I know. Even though I don't know everything, doesn't mean that I know nothing. God is a logical contradiction, the assertion that "A&^A". If you want to defend the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, we would be better off -- you'd just have to make the case and I'd evaluate the evidence, or reject the claim as arbitrary. But in order to swallow the existence of god, I would have to deny the law of the excluded middle, which i how I know that god is impossible.

[Inspector]

@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?

No, because we do not criticize the fact that some religions require you to totally accept all of their tenets in order to consider yourself a member. We criticize the "dogma of salvation by grace" because we believe it to be factually untrue. Just as we believe many, many other things religious to be untrue.

While I don't agree at all with Catholicism, for example, if a Catholic priest told you, "you must accept xxx to call yourself a Catholic. If you don't, then you can go make your own religion, but please don't call it Catholicism," then I think that would be a perfectly legitimate statement.

Does that make sense to you?

[Linkara]

@Inspector: Yes, that does make sense. I refer to the above post about the difference between "Objectivist" and "Student of Objectivism."

@DavidOdden: Hold on a sec, how is God a logical contradiction to "A is A?"

[DavidOdden]

Hold on a sec, how is God a logical contradiction to "A is A?"

Tell me what properties you think god has. Omniscient, omnipotent.... anything else? Omnipresent, infinite in extent, outside of ("above") physical existence. Omnipotence is an inherently contradictory concept. God lacks the ability to withdraw from any part of the universe, cannot create a being more powerful than him, etc. All of existence is finite, but the presumed properties of god contradict this. God by assumption (you may break with your collegues on this point) has no definite nature, yet all existents have a definite nature.

[aequalsa]

@DavidOdden: Hold on a sec, how is God a logical contradiction to "A is A?"

A is A is sometimes used as a sort of objectivist slang way of saying that contradictions do not exist. The actual argument against god goes something more like this. The universe is everything that exists. God,a conscious being, if he was the creator of the universe, existed before anything else did. Conciousness is a trait posessed by an entity concious of something. Or in Ayn Rand's terms "consciousness is conscious," Which means concious of something. So if god existed as a creator, he would be a conciousness conscious only of himself which would be a contradiction in terms. In short, to be conscious or aware of something you must be conscious of it as a particular entity as opposed to another entity. This is why to define an object, you must identify it's genus and differentia. In what category is it and how is it different from other things in it's category? With no other objects to compare himself to, he would be unable to identify even himself, let alone create a universe. So there's ITOE in 300 words. If you need me to exand or reexplain any of that let me know.

Strangely, that section is what finally gave me an understanding of the problem with Hard determinsim.

[Linkara]

A is A is sometimes used as a sort of objectivist slang way of saying that contradictions do not exist. The actual argument against god goes something more like this. The universe is everything that exists. God,a conscious being, if he was the creator of the universe, existed before anything else did. Conciousness is a trait posessed by an entity concious of something. Or in Ayn Rand's terms "consciousness is conscious," Which means concious of something. So if god existed as a creator, he would be a conciousness conscious only of himself which would be a contradiction in terms. In short, to be conscious or aware of something you must be conscious of it as a particular entity as opposed to another entity. This is why to define an object, you must identify it's genus and differentia. In what category is it and how is it different from other things in it's category? With no other objects to compare himself to, he would be unable to identify even himself, let alone create a universe. So there's ITOE in 300 words. If you need me to exand or reexplain any of that let me know.

Strangely, that section is what finally gave me an understanding of the problem with Hard determinsim.

No, I get it. ^^ In which case I will, as David suggested, break with my colleagues on this one to try to explain how he wouldn't necessarily BREAK "A is A" but be beyond it. If I define God as an all-knowing, all-powerful entity that existed before the universe, I have to imagine that his consciousness is beyond human consciousness and is capable of insights that no human being could imagine. We wouldn't necessarily be able to ascribe certain qualities to God, like trying to describe God as male or female would be impossible because he's a force beyond such qualities.

Also, my personal beliefs suggest that God wasn't alone before the universe or before time, there were angels, as well. Since they existed outside of time and space, we could not apply such terms as "beginning" or "creation" to them, they simply were. Now that I think about it, I suppose that's really the problem Objectivism has with this stuff - concepts like God, angels, and existing before time are outside of reason and rational logic because by definition they'd have to occur outside of it. O_O;;

In any case, we're still pulling away from the original question, as I mentioned above. ^_~

[Groovenstein]

If I define God as an all-knowing, all-powerful entity that existed before the universe

Omnipotence is impossible. Power is an attribute. Attributes can not exist in infinite quantities.

I have to imagine that his consciousness is beyond human consciousness and is capable of insights that no human being could imagine.

If he's beyond human consciousness then why do you claim to know anything about him?

Since they existed outside of time and space, we could not apply such terms as "beginning" or "creation" to them, they simply were.

If you are comfortable saying that God and angels simply were, why wouldn't you be comfortable saying the same thing about the universe? Put another way, why do you need creation to explain the universe if you are comfortable with the idea of something having always existed?

In any case, we're still pulling away from the original question, as I mentioned above.

By the original question, you mean can one be an Objectivist and a Christian? I think that question has been answered with a resounding "no." Is there some particular point for which you seek clarification?

[Linkara]

Well, I don't believe omnipotence is impossible. Sadly it's one of those things that I can't prove but I believe it regardless of having never experienced it.

I don't claim to KNOW anything about him, I believe based on how I see it under my personal reasoning.

I'm comfortable in my belief that God and angels existed before the universe. I'm not comfortable with the universe always being. ^_~ As to why I'm not comfortable with it, my own curiosity demands satisfaction and I wish to know what caused it, why it happened, and etc. I am comfortable with believing that things existed before there was a universe, but I want to know why the universe started, then. ^_~ I have my own beliefs on the matter, but I know not if they are the true reality of it. If I may inquire, how do you believe the universe was created?

Yeah, we seem to have gotten the resounding "no!" Just wanted to see if anyone else had any thoughts on the subject.

[aequalsa]

In any case, I think we're straying away from the original question, which is - is it possible to be an Objectivist and a Religious Practicer? If no, then there need be no more discussion. If yes, how?

Philosophically I would say no. If by objectivist you mean, someone who is in complete agreement with Rand's philosophic beliefs, then by definition, you could not be one since your views of existence etc incorporate what she considers to be a mistaken notion of the nature of the universe. In that you believe in something which exists outside the realm of the universe(that which exists). Objectivism is based on the notion that we live in an objective universe where things are what they are. Belief in something supernatural is belief in something for which there is no verifiable evidence since these things are by definition, outside of the realm of perception(ie super-natural=beyond what is natural)

Practically speaking, we live in the same universe. We contend with the same reality. If you were staring at a tsunami you would have to decide whether to tie yourself to a palm tree or kneel down and pray to god for your survival. If you follow reason you would do the former, if faith is your guide you do the latter. There is no reason I see why you could not do both, as you advocate. Just be sure and tie yourself to the palm tree first, then pray. So in short, you can follow objectivism and reason to whatever extent you wish. If it stops at metaphysics it stops at metaphysics. My guess is that the way you would resolve this without letting go of your supernatural belief is that God made the universe and, ostensibly the rules it runs by. Everything from that point forward is objective and real. So while you are living in this reality that god created, you would do well to abide by the rules he left with it. If objectivism most closely explains how the universe works, then those are gods rules. Kind of a deist approach, but it seems to most closely fit you from what you have said.

[Linkara]

Philosophically I would say no. If by objectivist you mean, someone who is in complete agreement with Rand's philosophic beliefs, then by definition, you could not be one since your views of existence etc incorporate what she considers to be a mistaken notion of the nature of the universe. In that you believe in something which exists outside the realm of the universe(that which exists). Objectivism is based on the notion that we live in an objective universe where things are what they are. Belief in something supernatural is belief in something for which there is no verifiable evidence since these things are by definition, outside of the realm of perception(ie super-natural=beyond what is natural)

Practically speaking, we live in the same universe. We contend with the same reality. If you were staring at a tsunami you would have to decide whether to tie yourself to a palm tree or kneel down and pray to god for your survival. If you follow reason you would do the former, if faith is your guide you do the latter. There is no reason I see why you could not do both, as you advocate. Just be sure and tie yourself to the palm tree first, then pray. So in short, you can follow objectivism and reason to whatever extent you wish. If it stops at metaphysics it stops at metaphysics. My guess is that the way you would resolve this without letting go of your supernatural belief is that God made the universe and, ostensibly the rules it runs by. Everything from that point forward is objective and real. So while you are living in this reality that god created, you would do well to abide by the rules he left with it. If objectivism most closely explains how the universe works, then those are gods rules. Kind of a deist approach, but it seems to most closely fit you from what you have said.

Aequalsa, you have made a total of three posts in this thread and each time you do so you manage to convey it better than I could have ever hoped for and also give me better insight into Objectivism. Bravo.

Oh, and yes - tie myself to the tree and THEN pray. (Although knowing myself and my ability to panic, odds are be running and screaming in abject fear of the oncoming tsunami instead of doing either. ^^;; )

Edited June 12, 2006 by Linkara

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa, you have made a total of three posts in this thread and each time you do so you manage to convey it better than I could have ever hoped for and also give me better insight into Objectivism. Bravo.

Oh, and yes - tie myself to the tree and THEN pray. (Although knowing myself and my ability to panic, odds are be running and screaming in abject fear of the oncoming tsunami instead of doing either. ^^;; )

Ah gee whiz...I think I'm ing. Thanks though. Glad to help

[Groovenstein]

I don't claim to KNOW anything about him, I believe based on how I see it under my personal reasoning.

Reason is the process used to arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion is knowledge. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal reasoning." If by that you mean faith, then you should say faith. Reason and faith are not synonymous.

If I may inquire, how do you believe the universe was created?

You may. I have no reason to think it was. It just exists. If you think the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? And why doesn't that creator require a creator? And so on and so on, and you have an infinite regress.

[Linkara]

Reason is the process used to arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion is knowledge. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal reasoning." If by that you mean faith, then you should say faith. Reason and faith are not synonymous.

You may. I have no reason to think it was. It just exists. If you think the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? And why doesn't that creator require a creator? And so on and so on, and you have an infinite regress.

Let me put it into a context of my personal reasoning. Now, I assume from the start that God does exist. You may consider this a false premise since you don't believe God exists, but from where I'm standing it's a valid one. The question is addressed to me: "If God exists and he's all good and all powerful, why did he allow so many people to die on (for the sake of this discussion) 9/11?"

This is, of course, one of the classic questions and criticisms of God: allowing evil things to happen or why bad things happen to good people. I use reasoning based on what I believe of God to come up with a conclusion. My answer to the initial question:

God, according to my beliefs, imparted free choice upon the people of the world to make their own decisions and their own mistakes, ultimately would not directly get involved in causing harm to people or directly saving them, since his direct interference would cause a problem to free choice, like tainting the results of an experiment by having the test subject go to a preferred path instead of letting them choose the path they wish to take. However, since according to my beliefs, God is all-good, he does not want people to die before their time. As such, he has a group of angels who work on earth, not directly saving people (like catching them while they're falling from the top of the tower) but by guiding them to save themselves. Now, angels are not like God, according to my beliefs, since any being that is equal to God would be a contradiction of the idea that no two things are exactly the same and any other perfect being would negate God as being the ultimate source of good. Angels themselves cannot be everywhere at once and are still limited by the same non-direct intervention rules that God uses in order to keep humans free. As such, the angels can only help so many under the rules and they try their damndest to do it.

I can't directly prove any of this, but it's how my reason answers the question. Subsequently, it's also not a good idea to try to explain all of this to someone in grief, but better left as something discussed, debated, refuted, and reestablished in discussions like this one.

As for the question of why the Creator needs no creator, the idea of God being perfect (all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good) makes him exist outside the standard realm of causality and linear progression, therefore he is capable of existing without the need for something to happen before him. He is like how you see the universe - He simply is (by the by, as I said earlier, I can't necessarily ascribe either male or female to God due to existing outside the realm of human sciences, I say "he" because it's simpler for me and there's something... wrong for me if I were to try to refer to God as 'it' or the like). For me, the universe is linear and I believe there to be a start for it initiated by a creator.

[BNeptune]

I'm sure it's all very inwardly consistent to you, but the fact of the matter is it's the product of which fact of reality?

[Groovenstein]

Linkara, before I can address your points I must ask you an important question. If I show you that the existence of evil renders the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god impossible, will you acknowledge your error and correct it, or will you retain your belief in such a god without regard to logical defects?

[Bold Standard]

@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 consistent 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 consistency then be founded in each individual's ability to make consistency of it?

It's true that only individuals can have thoughts or beliefs. That's why there's no such thing as an "open" philosophy. A philosophy is always invented by some individual. To adopt any given philosophy is merely a statement of agreement with that individual about the specific points contained within his philosophy. So, in the strictest sense, a "Buddhist" is someone who agrees with Buddha. A Moslem is someone who agrees with Mahomet. A Marxist agrees with Marx. A Pragmaticist agrees with Peirce. An Objectivist agrees with Ayn Rand, etc. These people "are" Buddhists, Moslems, Marxists, etc, to the extent that they agree with the originator of the system.

An Objectivist would certainly reject the notion of Divine Grace, but on the grounds that it is unfounded or superstitious, not on the grounds that it is elitist. Furthermore, I believe "grace" is a mockery of justice. To say that a murderous criminal and an heroic genius are morally equal, and that each have an identical claim to Heaven if they only subordinate their minds to God or His representative's standards and promise to "do their best" to live up to them, is to elevate and reward murderous, criminal acts, and to punish and diminish the value of heroism and creativity. I believe many of the doctrines preached by Jesus and His followers (in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount) are consistent with an open rebellion against (as they had encountered it, the Roman concept of) justice. At this point the (unstated, but implied) premises of Christianity become even further divorced from Ayn Rand's (stated, and rigorously argued) philosophy.

In fact, if people were to seriously attempt criticizing Christianity for inegalitarianism or inflexibility, I think they would actually have a much lower opinion of Objectivism. Jesus said things like, "Whosoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9:40). Christianity wants to subsume as many people as it can (better for the offering plate, strategically speaking). If you want to be a Christian in the broadest sense, since Jesus was so vague, all you really have to do is go through the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Sure. Why not?" to whatever the Bible (or its Earthly interpreter) says.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, disassociated herself from anyone who disagreed with her on (what some observers thought were minor) points she considered absolutely essential, provided that they conclusively acted on their conflicting belief. She did this, in a couple of cases, arguably to the detriment of her (short term) popularity and public renown. A lot of people find this offensive because, they seem to argue, "Who takes ideas seriously, anyway?"

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

I'll keep an eye out for this thread (interesting topic), but the short answer is that emotions are not necessarily irrational, but neither are they necessarily rational, therefore they are unreliable guides to action. The reason they are not necessarily rational is that they function automatically based on whatever premises you have adopted, whether your premises are correct or incorrect; and man is fallible, so if you have adopted a false premise, when a situation arises in which it is relevant, your emotional response will then be "inappropriate."

[Linkara]

I'm sure it's all very inwardly consistent to you, but the fact of the matter is it's the product of which fact of reality?

Good question. ^_~ Considering my reality to me is the only one I can relate to as an individual, it's the product of the facts of my own reality. Admittedly, it does nothing for you, but that's the only answer I can give to that question.

Linkara, before I can address your points I must ask you an important question. If I show you that the existence of evil renders the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god impossible, will you acknowledge your error and correct it, or will you retain your belief in such a god without regard to logical defects?

Considering I've already heard such arguments before (and discussed them in a religion class and wrote my opinions on the subject in my theodicy paper that I mentioned on the first page), odds are using the existence of evil as a proof to the nonexistence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God probably won't discourage me from my beliefs.

But you wouldn't be an Objectivist if you gave up so easily, so go for it!

It's true that only individuals can have thoughts or beliefs. That's why there's no such thing as an "open" philosophy. A philosophy is always invented by some individual. To adopt any given philosophy is merely a statement of agreement with that individual about the specific points contained within his philosophy. So, in the strictest sense, a "Buddhist" is someone who agrees with Buddha. A Moslem is someone who agrees with Mahomet. A Marxist agrees with Marx. A Pragmaticist agrees with Peirce. An Objectivist agrees with Ayn Rand, etc. These people "are" Buddhists, Moslems, Marxists, etc, to the extent that they agree with the originator of the system.

Agreed.

An Objectivist would certainly reject the notion of Divine Grace, but on the grounds that it is unfounded or superstitious, not on the grounds that it is elitist. Furthermore, I believe "grace" is a mockery of justice. To say that a murderous criminal and an heroic genius are morally equal, and that each have an identical claim to Heaven if they only subordinate their minds to God or His representative's standards and promise to "do their best" to live up to them, is to elevate and reward murderous, criminal acts, and to punish and diminish the value of heroism and creativity. I believe many of the doctrines preached by Jesus and His followers (in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount) are consistent with an open rebellion against (as they had encountered it, the Roman concept of) justice. At this point the (unstated, but implied) premises of Christianity become even further divorced from Ayn Rand's (stated, and rigorously argued) philosophy.

And as I said, I disagree with the idea of grace being the only path to God. Too many people can use God as an excuse to do evil things and, as such, I believe there's got to be more to it and, as such, don't necessarily believe that one must be Christian in order to reach heaven when they die.

In fact, if people were to seriously attempt criticizing Christianity for inegalitarianism or inflexibility, I think they would actually have a much lower opinion of Objectivism. Jesus said things like, "Whosoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9:40). Christianity wants to subsume as many people as it can (better for the offering plate, strategically speaking). If you want to be a Christian in the broadest sense, since Jesus was so vague, all you really have to do is go through the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Sure. Why not?" to whatever the Bible (or its Earthly interpreter) says.

Please forgive me, but could you expand on this a bit? I'm not entirely certain what you're saying here. ^^;;

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, disassociated herself from anyone who disagreed with her on (what some observers thought were minor) points she considered absolutely essential, provided that they conclusively acted on their conflicting belief. She did this, in a couple of cases, arguably to the detriment of her (short term) popularity and public renown. A lot of people find this offensive because, they seem to argue, "Who takes ideas seriously, anyway?"

An idea is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. One cannot destroy an idea nor truly suppress it, because once it is instilled it is forever imprinted on those who have been touched by it, for better or worse. Ideas should always be taken seriously... unless they're meant for comedic value. ^_~

[DavidOdden]

odds are using the existence of evil as a proof to the nonexistence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God probably won't discourage me from my beliefs.

As I mentioned earlier, epistemology is really the key study for you. Objectivism holds that the only way to have knowledge is to use reason on the perceptually self-evident -- the data of your senses. I have noted repeatedly in your replies that you are "personally convinced" of the existence of god or that it reflects your "personal reality", but you can't give an objective argument to prove the existence of god. In other words, god is for you a matter of faith. You directly say that you assume from the start the existence of God. You defend that assumption by asserting that it is a valid one "from where you are standing", that is, it is an assumption that has no perceptual basis and that cannot be objectively justified. This faith is so strong that it allows you to ignore the blatant contradiction in your logic: you insist that god need not have a cause, but the universe must. Why? Why don't you freely grant the universe the option of being uncaused when you do so for god?

This rigid subjectivism is dimetrically opposed to the core of Objectivism, and ultimately means that you have less in common with Objectivism than libertarianism does.

[Zephyr Delta]

God, according to my beliefs, imparted free choice upon the people of the world to make their own decisions and their own mistakes, ultimately would not directly get involved in causing harm to people or directly saving them, since his direct interference would cause a problem to free choice, like tainting the results of an experiment by having the test subject go to a preferred path instead of letting them choose the path they wish to take. However, since according to my beliefs, God is all-good, he does not want people to die before their time. As such, he has a group of angels who work on earth, not directly saving people (like catching them while they're falling from the top of the tower) but by guiding them to save themselves. Now, angels are not like God, according to my beliefs, since any being that is equal to God would be a contradiction of the idea that no two things are exactly the same and any other perfect being would negate God as being the ultimate source of good. Angels themselves cannot be everywhere at once and are still limited by the same non-direct intervention rules that God uses in order to keep humans free. As such, the angels can only help so many under the rules and they try their damndest to do it.

Why would God give men free will if he had already planned a time for them to die? You don't truly have free will if the time you're going to die is already pre-determined; you no longer have the free will to choose your own death. Or do you believe God to be above reason?

[RationalBiker]

Let me put it into a context of my personal reasoning.

God, according to my beliefs

I can't directly prove any of this, but it's how my reason answers the question.

Considering my reality to me is the only one I can relate to as an individual, it's the product of the facts of my own reality.

Considering I've already heard such arguments before..(snip) ..probably won't discourage me from my beliefs.

I notice here a string of statements that suggest Linkara has his own SUBJECTIVE sense of "reasoning". IT IS NOT reasoning that follows objective logic, and he has pretty much stated that if Groovenstein (or anyone I assume) were to demonstrate FACTUALLY why a god could not exist, he would not abandon his subjective beliefs (his faith) anyway. In two pages now, he has failed to establish any factual argument supporting the existence or even a possibility of the existence of a god.

As a moderator, I think this farce has gone on long enough so I'm closing the thread.