A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

" 3 Fine-tuning of the universe; existence of a fine-tuned universe; fine-tuning evidence; fine-tuning data. To stay in conformity with the literature, I shall mean by the “fine-tuning of the universe” or the “existence of a fine-tuned universe” the conjunction of the following two claims: (i) the claim that the laws and values of the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of any universe with the same laws as our universe, must be set in a seemingly very precise way for the universe to support life;

bold added

Must be set? By whom? How are they set?

You’re wearing me out here.

I do not understand that distinction, and I’m not sure that anyone else does either. You’re free to try to explain it.

I’m not up for seeking out and retyping relevant passages, or for reformulating it in my own words from scratch right now. Maybe on a weekend. It seems dream_weaver has the searchable CD, from which it’s easy to cut and paste, so maybe he’ll do it. I see he’s posted something on it already, ahead of me.

22

Must be set? By whom? How are they set?

Collins just seems to be saying that the constants (and so forth) need to fall within a seemingly very precise range. His language doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s someone setting the constants.

I’m not up for seeking out and retyping relevant passages, or for reformulating it in my own words from scratch right now. Maybe on a weekend. It seems dream_weaver has the searchable CD, from which it’s easy to cut and paste, so maybe he’ll do it. I see he’s posted something on it already, ahead of me.

That’s fine.

23

General note: if I recall correctly, ctrl y is a fellow who used to be an Objectivist and now considers himself Christian. The only reason I mention this is because some people seem to think he is not familiar with Oist principles and I believe it is the case that he is very familiar with them and disagrees anyway. I don’t know if this affects how people choose to engage in this argument, but it might.

1 Like
24

General note: if I recall correctly, ctrl y is a fellow who used to be an Objectivist and now considers himself Christian. The only reason I mention this is because some people seem to think he is not familiar with Oist principles and I believe it is the case that he is very familiar with them and disagrees anyway. I don’t know if this affects how people choose to engage in this argument, but it might.

I’m not sure why my beliefs should come into it at all. It should just be about the logic. Since you bring it up, I’ve read OPAR several times, as well as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and a lot of Rand’s nonfiction. I was really into Objectivism in high school and early college, but since then I think I’ve found some holes in the philosophy. I don’t think most people would describe me as a Christian per se, but I’ve begun reading a Christian philosopher and theologian named Richard Swinburne, and I think I find his worldview more plausible than Ayn Rand’s.

In any case, I’m not here to convert people away from Objectivism. As you can see, I just started this thread because I thought the members of the forum would be interested to read a Christian’s responses to Objectivist arguments in philosophy of religion. If the moderators think it looks like I’m trying to proselytize, obviously they can close the thread or move it to debates.

25

I’m not sure why my beliefs should come into it at all. It should just be about the logic. Since you bring it up, I’ve read OPAR several times, as well as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and a lot of Rand’s nonfiction. I was really into Objectivism in high school and early college, but since then I think I’ve found some holes in the philosophy. I don’t think most people would describe me as a Christian per se, but I’ve begun reading a Christian philosopher and theologian named Richard Swinburne, and I think I find his worldview more plausible than Ayn Rand’s.

In any case, I’m not here to convert people away from Objectivism. As you can see, I just started this thread because I thought the members of the forum would be interested to read a Christian’s responses to Objectivist arguments in philosophy of religion. If the moderators think it looks like I’m trying to proselytize, obviously they can close the thread or move it to debates.

Your beliefs are only relevant insofar as I see a lot of people telling you “If you read XYZ…” and I was trying to explain to them that you are pretty familiar with Objectivism already. I thought you had previously described yourself as a Christian. If that is not the case, my apologies.

A slightly related question - what do you believe a universe in which there was no God would look like?

26

Your beliefs are only relevant insofar as I see a lot of people telling you “If you read XYZ…” and I was trying to explain to them that you are pretty familiar with Objectivism already. I thought you had previously described yourself as a Christian. If that is not the case, my apologies.

Okay.

A slightly related question - what do you believe a universe in which there was no God would look like?

I don’t think that there would be a universe if there was no God. God sustains everything logically contingent (other than himself, of course).

Thanks for the question.

27

Collins just seems to be saying that the constants (and so forth) need to fall within a seemingly very precise range. His language doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s someone setting the constants.

Oh come on!

banghead.gif

I’m not sure why my beliefs should come into it at all. It should just be about the logic. Since you bring it up, I’ve read OPAR several times, as well as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and a lot of Rand’s nonfiction.

It is relevant to anyone trying to explain something to you. They have to gauge whether you’re ignorant, obtuse, or a troll, for instance.

28

Okay.

I don’t think that there would be a universe if there was no God. God sustains everything logically contingent (other than himself, of course).

Thanks for the question.

To me, this smacks of “I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect.”

To my knowledge, Objectivists have not put forth any strong arguments to show theism is incoherent. They have no reason, therefore, to think it is incoherent.

This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

29

To me, this smacks of “I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect.”

There are many ways that I could respond to this. Suffice to say that I invest a pretty big portion of my time into discovering whether or not my current position on the existence of God is correct, and have done so for at least the last couple of years.

This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

Swinburne’s The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent. Do you think that the reasoning in this book fails? If so, why?

30

…

Swinburne’s The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent. Do you think that the reasoning in this book fails? If so, why?

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don’t make us chase you around.

31

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don’t make us chase you around.

My apologies. I usually don’t point people to books and websites as much as I’ve been doing in this discussion. I think I’m doing it a little more in this discussion because people are claiming that theism is incoherent and arbitrary as if these claims are uncontroversial. I’m trying to get across that (1) there’s a big body of rigorous philosophical literature on the existence and coherence of God and (2) it’s academically respectable to argue for the existence of God in philosophy - it’s not a “given” that God is incoherent and arbitrary.

32

My apologies. I usually don’t point people to books and websites as much as I’ve been doing in this discussion. I think I’m doing it a little more in this discussion because people are claiming that theism is incoherent and arbitrary as if these claims are uncontroversial. I’m trying to get across that (1) there’s a big body of rigorous philosophical literature on the existence and coherence of God and (2) it’s academically respectable to argue for the existence of God in philosophy - it’s not a “given” that God is incoherent and arbitrary.

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim.

The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so.

This, I think, is where people are coming from here.

In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here:

click arrow to travel to post

[edited to add]

33

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim.

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn’t exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don’t know that. It’s a little like the creationists, who claim to know that evolution did not happen in spite of the nearly universal dissent of the relevant scientists (don’t take that the wrong way; it’s just the first analogy that came to mind).

The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so.

This, I think, is where people are coming from here.

Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think that the concept of God presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. Could you explain why you think that it does?

In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here:

[edited to add]

2046 seems to be making a number of points, so maybe you could tell me which point you meant to indicate here. The main point which I got out of that post is that it’s not necessarily a problem for Objectivism that Objectivism is behind on philosophy of religion, because the new arguments in philosophy of religion are all arbitrary. I’m not sure how 2046 knows that these new arguments are arbitrary when the people working in the field apparently don’t know that, though.

34

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn’t exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don’t know that.

Returning to the earlier evaded point:

click arrow to travel to post

Learning how to validate one’s concepts, and how to relate them hierarchically and contextually to the perceptually given is not a skill that is taught in today’s society. Yet it is precisely this skill required to anchor one’s thinking to reality, to double check the validity of the concepts involved and by extension to ensure that one’s propositions are in alignment with what may be induced from observations, and establish the criteria and methods of proof.

By submitting a statement which asserts that an object which cannot be demonstrated to exist via the aforementioned methods reveals the arbitrary, the absurd, the invalid. Those who argue about God for either a living, or for free on an Objectivist forum demonstrate that they have not grasped the necessity for a reality based theory of concepts to guide their rational faculties.

35

Returning to the earlier evaded point:

Learning how to validate one’s concepts, and how to relate them hierarchically and contextually to the perceptually given is not a skill that is taught in today’s society. Yet it is precisely this skill required to anchor one’s thinking to reality, to double check the validity of the concepts involved and by extension to ensure that one’s propositions are in alignment with what may be induced from observations, and establish the criteria and methods of proof.

By submitting a statement which asserts that an object which cannot be demonstrated to exist via the aforementioned methods reveals the arbitrary, the absurd, the invalid. Those who argue about God for either a living, or for free on an Objectivist forum demonstrate that they have not grasped the necessity for a reality based theory of concepts to guide their rational faculties.

I’m not convinced that there’s much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I’ve read ITOE, and I didn’t see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Übermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who’ve spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she’s saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

36

Might want to get a new microscope if the one you’re using using tells you that grounding your concepts in perceptual awareness just sounds important, but isn’t, because rest assured, there are really smart people out there who spend their lives thinking about God, and they just know he’s up there. They’re working in the field and rigorous as hell, damn it, and who are we to know better than them? (They’re nearly Übermensch, because apparently you’d have to be one to merit out-thinking them.)

37

I’m not convinced that there’s much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I’ve read ITOE, and I didn’t see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Übermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who’ve spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she’s saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

It is pretty obvious that you are not convinced. Reading a text, is not going to make anyone effortless out-think anyone.

As to your reasons for leaving Objectivism, lurking on a forum developed for Objectivism for nearly four years, it brings to mind a variant that one’s actions speak so loudly, it is difficult to hear what is being typed.

Things tend to dissolve when put into a liquid, not under a microscope. If you’re examining Miss Rand’s writing with a microscope, you might consider a large print edition.

While you are being metaphoric, your selection of concepts to convey that metaphor certainly back up your opening statement about the theory of concepts.

Without a theory of concepts, identifications of “floating abstractions”, “invalid or stolen concepts”, have been cast aside as semantics in my past, and this by a man who had gone to a seminary to become proficient at hermeneutics.

38

Swinburne’s The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent.

Then I’ll have one coherent definition of God, please. And I’d like a side order of theodicy, when you get a chance.

1 Like
39

I’m not convinced that there’s much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I’ve read ITOE, and I didn’t see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Übermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who’ve spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she’s saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

You didn’t see anything like that because that wasn’t the point or argument that Rand was ever getting it, not even implicitly. ITOE is about is concept formation and the role of concepts, it’s not a how-to manual on becoming a super-genius capable of doing calculus without any effort. If you were looking for “The Answers” about how to think, well, they’re not there. What is there is a philosophical foundation to what concepts even are and what they consist of.

Maybe what you mean by “there’s not much of anything” is that it’s not a giant tome and therefore lacking in rigor. The length of a discussion has nothing to do with its validity, though. If you were hoping ITOE would be a complicated 1000 page tome, then you were sorely mistaken. And yes, that does relate to this thread. The reason you find more literature about regarding the legitimacy of god is because atheists don’t care to entertain such an arbitrary idea. Theists clearly recognize that the burden of proof is on them, that’s why they bother to have so many attempts at justification. There’s not much of anything to atheism. Reject an arbitrary assertion and you’re done.

40

Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn’t exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don’t know that. It’s a little like the creationists, who claim to know that evolution did not happen in spite of the nearly universal dissent of the relevant scientists (don’t take that the wrong way; it’s just the first analogy that came to mind).

Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think that the concept of God presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. Could you explain why you think that it does?

2046 seems to be making a number of points, so maybe you could tell me which point you meant to indicate here. The main point which I got out of that post is that it’s not necessarily a problem for Objectivism that Objectivism is behind on philosophy of religion, because the new arguments in philosophy of religion are all arbitrary. I’m not sure how 2046 knows that these new arguments are arbitrary when the people working in the field apparently don’t know that, though.

I’m sorry that it seems absurd to you. For a person to say these many people are wrong and I am right is not per se absurd. Consider what would make it absurd, namely, if the many were correct. And how do we determine truth? Very important stuff here in your approach. The Creationists are absurd because they hold to arbitrary assertions and claim that the findings of science are beneath them.

I don’t know how much of Objectivism’s reasons for atheism you have read, but this idea of reasonable examination made fruitless from the start was clear to me when I first read it. (pp 30-33 in OPAR are helpful, as well as I believe “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” which can be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.)

The point 2046 is making is that Objectivism does not have a “hole” or a “problem” simply because it doesn’t answer to every arbitrary assertion about a deity or about some supernatural something-or-other.

I’m not convinced that there’s much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I’ve read ITOE, and I didn’t see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Übermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who’ve spent their lives on a subject.

This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she’s saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.

The philosophy of Objectivism is not about taking an authority’s word for it. Your approach is where you are at fault. You want some *one* to convince you that an arbitrary assertion is not true. Knowing what you know about the burden of proof, you ought to bring the specific argument to this forum and ask us to analyze the formulation.