Why Objectivism

[triple7allstar]

Why is evidence of God not in toast? Isn't the likeness of Jesus in a piece of toast within the capabilities of God? Why wouldn't he give us evidence of his existence in such an unpredictable place? Do you have some inside information and know something about the nature of God that we don't?

My apologies, I guess I assumed you were aware of the atheistic position of Objectivism, hence my using religious examples as examples of preposterousness. I won't get into the anti-god stuff, but there are lots of posts about religion, and indeed an entire forum dedicated to religion.

You know, I thought I should clarify my statement prior to posting it. Haha. Yes, God could show us evidence of His existence through toast. My point was that it is not fair to single out one example (of a lady that might either be "out of it" mentally or simply "pulling a fast one" to make some money) as the only example.

My point was that there are more credible examples than toast - haha.

But, thank you for the clarification as well.

[KendallJ]

Ah, ok. Now I think I understand. I think you may want to consider the fact that there is an intertwined history there and so what you see in Christianity may in some ways be mixed in with what you see in Objectivism. The fact is Objectivism has philsophical roots in Greek and Enlightenment philsophies, and Christianity has been highly intertwined with these for some time. Thomas Aquinas for instance was responsible for rediscovering the works of Aristotle and for setting the Catholic church on a path to attempt to reconcile reason and God (which it hasn't).The way some people interpret Christianity should not be confused with what the doctrine says. America is a country with its most core intellectual roots in the Enlightenment, with reason and a this-worldly perspective as critical elements. Maybe what you are seeing is religion filtered through an Enlightenment lens. In some ways the Enlightenment has tempered the damage religion inflicts on rational progress. But look outside the influences of the Enlightenment, and you get a better glimpse of what havock religion, as such, causes.Objectivism rejects any form of non-reason such as religion, and firmly places its roots in Enlightenment / Greek (primarily Aritotelean) thinking.

I was just curious if there were some Objectivists that might syncronize their objectivist thinking with theism.

Theism is the last vestige of religion being removed. To the extent that a theist is this wordly and bases his conclusions on reason, then you might consider Objectivism as similar. The real question to ask is what is complimenting the belief in God in such a Theist. That is, theism leaves open a lot to non-religious influence. What fills that void will determine if it is in any way similar to Objectivism. If you are talking of the Theism of our founding fathers who filled that void with Enlightenment thinking and philosophy, then yes. If you're talking about some new age theist, then no.

[triple7allstar]

First, asking whether an argument is "a bit serving for your POV" serves no useful purpose, because only a crazy person oposes their own point of view. The right question to ask is whether that would be a valid argument, and not whether the argument advances a particular conclusion (the implication being that one's own POV is necessarily suspect??).

You are absolutely correct - my apologies.

Well, it is entirely correct to say that god is entirely and wholely a product of the imagination, if god cannot be seen (or otherwise observed using our sense organs). The mind is capable of piecing together ideas and impressions simply out of the lower-level concepts that one has created, based on actual perception of reality. A high-level notion fabricated out of such concepts does indeed quality as imaginary, until it is directly perceived.

How do you know? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but, again, saying that something doesn't exist because you can't percieve it only proves that you don't perceive it, not that the thing doesn't exist. This is a logical fallacy.

My guess is there are things about this world (and possibly beyond) that we have yet to perceive.

[KendallJ]

My point was that there are more credible examples than toast - haha.

The Objectivist position on God in brief is that there is nothing credible that points to any evidence of one. That is because, infinite, omnipotent entities are non-sequitirs. They are contradiction in terms. They are anti-axiomatic.There are no "credible" examples that give direct evidence of God. You will always find any "credible" evidence really linked by a series of suppositions at least one of which has absolutely no basis in reality and so requires faith to accept. But, if you string enough evidentiary bits together, you can hide the one or more that require faith in something that "looks credible".

How do you know? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but, again, saying that something doesn't exist because you can't percieve it only proves that you don't perceive it, not that the thing doesn't exist. This is a logical fallacy.My guess is there are things about this world (and possibly beyond) that we have yet to perceive.

That was my answer about it being really not an issue of proof, but rather an issue of anti-axiomatic. I have many things in this world yet to discover, but what I know about all of them as of yet undiscovered is that they have a nature, they act according to cause and effect, and they are limited. I will never find an apple that turns into an orange, without a cause which itself is based in reality.

The very definition of God flies in the face of that. It is not just an undiscovered thing. It is impossible.

Edited June 29, 2007 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

My guess is there are things about this world (and possibly beyond) that we have yet to perceive.

That's possible. But these are things that can be perceived. You raised the argument about things that can't be perceived, which, as I said, are necessarily imaginary ("things which enter the mind only via imagination"). If you want to change your claim and say that you've actually seen god, then we can discuss your evidence. But for now, we are not talking about things that cannot be perceived. By way of contrast, there is another imaginary animal, a unicorn, which flies, has a horn, and is otherwise a horse. The claim, among unicorn-believers, is not that the beast cannot be seen, but has only been rarely seen, or so I've been told.

[Marc K.]

I would say that there are a large number of Christians that would say, "this is good because the evidence about human nature and the rest of reality show that this futhers your life, just like God set it up from the beginning"

But the fact that they might say that doesn't make it true.

Just as a heroin addict might say that shooting heroin makes him happy.

[triple7allstar]

But the fact that they might say that doesn't make it true.

Agreed.

[triple7allstar]

That's possible. But these are things that can be perceived. You raised the argument about things that can't be perceived, which, as I said, are necessarily imaginary ("things which enter the mind only via imagination"). If you want to change your claim and say that you've actually seen god, then we can discuss your evidence. But for now, we are not talking about things that cannot be perceived. By way of contrast, there is another imaginary animal, a unicorn, which flies, has a horn, and is otherwise a horse. The claim, among unicorn-believers, is not that the beast cannot be seen, but has only been rarely seen, or so I've been told.

So then, I guess my question now focuses on whether or not you believe God can be percieved? I would guess that the average objectivist would say to someone that says, "I've 'perceived' God" that they are out of their mind.

[softwareNerd]

From what I know of Christianity, I would say that there are a large number of Christians that would say, "this is good because the evidence about human nature and the rest of reality show that this futhers your life, just like God set it up from the beginning"

If one traces one's actions back to the fundamental of "God's will", then -- in theory -- anything goes. It's becomes anybody's guess as to what God's will really is, because they're guessing about something fictional. What you seem to be saying is that many people disgree fundamentally with Objectivism on epistemology (i.e. how we arrive at knowledge), but end up agreeing with Objectivism on ethics.

Of course a lot of regular mildly-religious folk try to live in ways that are quite practical: get a job, find some interests, seek romance, and so on. Not just Christians, mind you, even many Muslims (today's poster child of the religous mentality) do so.

People who are agnostic or strictly deist think that even if God exists, he is essentially irrelevant to our ongoing life. One cannot compare the ethics of such people -- as a group -- with any other ethical theory because they look elsewhere than religious texts for ethical theory. Today most of them accept some type of secular-altruist theory or some sort nihilist theory. If a religous person rejects religous text and relies on reality and his mind for ethics, then one should compare the particular ethical theory (altruism, hedonism, nihilism) with Objectivism, to really understand the differences.

So, if you want to understand ethical thinking for this sub-group of people, don't classify them as "Christians". Instead (for example) understand them as being "altruists", who share an ethical code with muslim altruists, communist altruists, and so on, and compare against Objectivism at that level.

[triple7allstar]

If one traces one's actions back to the fundamental of "God's will", then -- in theory -- anything goes. It's becomes anybody's guess as to what God's will really is, because they're guessing about something fictional. What you seem to be saying is that many people disgree fundamentally with Objectivism on epistemology (i.e. how we arrive at knowledge), but end up agreeing with Objectivism on ethics.

Of course a lot of regular mildly-religious folk try to live in ways that are quite practical: get a job, find some interests, seek romance, and so on. Not just Christians, mind you, even many Muslims (today's poster child of the religous mentality) do so.

People who are agnostic or strictly deist think that even if God exists, he is essentially irrelevant to our ongoing life. One cannot compare the ethics of such people -- as a group -- with any other ethical theory because they look elsewhere than religious texts for ethical theory. Today most of them accept some type of secular-altruist theory or some sort nihilist theory. If a religous person rejects religous text and relies on reality and his mind for ethics, then one should compare the particular ethical theory (altruism, hedonism, nihilism) with Objectivism, to really understand the differences.

So, if you want to understand ethical thinking for this sub-group of people, don't classify them as "Christians". Instead (for example) understand them as being "altruists", who share an ethical code with muslim altruists, communist altruists, and so on, and compare against Objectivism at that level.

Great info - thanks

If one traces one's actions back to the fundamental of "God's will", then -- in theory -- anything goes. It's becomes anybody's guess as to what God's will really is, because they're guessing about something fictional

Not quite. This presupposes that Christianity is fictional (which it very well might be). Also, Christians believe that "God's Will" is not "anything goes" or "anybody's guess", but has been revealed through the Bible. Just thought I would help to clarify.

[DavidOdden]

So then, I guess my question now focuses on whether or not you believe God can be percieved? I would guess that the average objectivist would say to someone that says, "I've 'perceived' God" that they are out of their mind.

The main reason for saying that god cannot be perceived is that he does not exist -- I was accepting your assumption that he can't be perceived but of course that wasn't a gratuitous assumption on my part. The reputed properties of god are contradictory and therefore incompatible with existence. (We need a FAQ that puts together the links where the logical impossibility of god are put together in one place).

I have never actually met any person who claims to have perceived god, in the real sense of "perceive", although many xers claim to "feel" that god exists, though you don't see him directly (you infer that he exists because a flower exists, and how could something so wonderful as a flower exist without god, that kind of stuff). I understand that there is a common psychosis whereby people think they hear things, like god talking to them and telling them to wipe out the infidels. Those guys are crazy. Most xers that I know don't really claim to perceive god, they just "believe".

[KendallJ]

Not quite. This presupposes that Christianity is fictional (which it very well might be). Also, Christians believe that "God's Will" is not "anything goes" or "anybody's guess", but has been revealed through the Bible. Just thought I would help to clarify.

Yes, quite.

God is fictional. Christiantiy is an example of what happens when people disregard that.

Christians believe that God's will is revealed through the bible. Muslims believe that God's will is revealed in the Quran, to which Christians have no answer but, "Well, we believe differently." It is anything goes, because whose to say whose book is the right one? Without reason to ground your suppositions, you cannot defend against anyone who would offer up a different explanation anything. Thus, anything goes. The fact that some people have gotten together and agreed that for them the Bible is where its at, does not mean that they haven't cut off the only thing that could have properly corrected and then defended their views, reason.

Edited June 29, 2007 by KendallJ

[Chops]

Christians believe that God's will is revealed through the bible. Muslims believe that God's will is revealed in the Quran, to which Christians have no answer but, "Well, we believe differently." It is anything goes, because whose to say whose book is the right one? Without reason to ground your suppositions, you cannot defend against anyone who would offer up a different explanation anything. Thus, anything goes. The fact that some people have gotten together and agreed that for them the Bible is where its at, does not mean that they haven't cut off the only thing that could have properly corrected and then defended their views, reason.

Beyond that, even, within the religions themselves they cannot agree on certain things. Some Christians believe that the bible is 100% accurate, while others believe that the bible is mostly metaphor with bits of history thrown in, and anything in between. Even within each religion, things are "anything goes," simply because they cannot agree except on the basics like "Be good." As an example, I know one person who believes that Hitler could be in heaven if in his in his warped, little mind he truly believed he was doing the right thing, while another believes that one will go to hell simply for believing the universe could be older than 6,000 years. Yet other Christians would look at both of those analyses and state "That's not very Christian of them." There is no consistency.

Interestingly enough, the most consistent (consistent among themselves) are the "infallible Bible" group, as they all agree that the Bible is 100% accurate. Conversely, everyone who rejects certain details of the Bible (by calling them metaphor) has inadvertently applied some amount of reason to their analysis and simply said "that doesn't make sense," but they find themselves incapable of applying reason to the whole of the Bible because it's been drilled into them from childhood that the Bible and God are axiomatic.