A Reason for Reverence?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” ~ Voltaire

Objectivism asserts that traditional faith in God* is irrational because God contradicts of the Law of Identity; a slam dunk for reason…

… and yet credible statistics** show that a majority of individuals worldwide remain faithful to an “illogical” God. In the USA (One Nation Under You-Know-Who), a nation dedicated to maintaining the greatest freedom of belief (or non-belief), less than 10% of the population identify themselves as “Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God”.

Was Voltaire correct?

I’m posting this topic as an effort to understand the persistance of faith in spite of reason; NOT TO ARGUE FOR GOD, but to account for the apparent need of an otherwise rational population to revere something… noble? heroic?? divine??? I propose that humans have a need for reverence that accounts for faith; that “Man as a Heroic Being” and “Nature’s God” respond to this need; and that persuading a faithful population to act rationally, requires understanding why reverence is important to them. Consider the following:

“The term self-esteem comes from a Greek word meaning ‘reverence for self.’”

http://ehlt.flinders…te/whatisse.htm

“Nature, science, literature, philosophy, great philosophers, leaders, artists, art, music, wisdom, and beauty may each act as the stimulus and focus of reverence.”

http://en.wikipedia…rence_(emotion)

“Secular reverence exerts a protective impact on physical health.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm…pubmed/21442245

“While occasionally religion or – less often – spirituality are linked with negative outcomes, the preponderance of research instead suggests a generally positive effect.”

http://www.patheos.c…alth-–-part-ii/

I’m not here to praise God, or to defend those who promote God. I’m here to explore the persistence of reverence for something godlike, and whether that’s entirely a bad thing. If you’d like to participate, I look forward to an honest discussion that goes beyond dismissing the faithful as irrational mystics. Is the concept of God a necessary invention? Does reverence enhance our well being?? Is there a positive reason for reverence???

“The highest thing in a man is not his god. It’s that in him which knows the reverence due a god.” ~ Ayn Rand, We The Living

–

* defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and Creator of the universe.

** http://freethoughtka…e-in-the-world/

The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?
The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?
The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?
The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?
The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?
2

If you’d like to participate, I look forward to an honest discussion that goes beyond dismissing the faithful as irrational mystics.

My starting position is that the faithful are irrational mystics. I will go beyond it as soon as you provide proof of God’s existence.

3

My starting position is that the faithful are irrational mystics. I will go beyond it as soon as you provide proof of God’s existence.

The topic is the need for reverence, not if mystical beliefs are irrational. Mystical beliefs typically offer reverence for something, even if it is reverence in the wrong ideas. Rationality could perhaps be viewed as reverence for the right ideas. You saying “faithful are irrational mystics” is true to an extent, but that is a matter of degree. A monk that hides away in a monastery for fifty years and self-mutilates is one level. Evangelicals condemning homosexuality as an ultimate sin that must be stopped is another level of irrationality. Another level, which is one that can probably be reasoned with, is a pagan approaching their life with individual beliefs in line with an approach that gods are something to look up to, which is how the Ancient Greeks were. I’m sure you wouldn’t merely wave your hand and say the Ancient Greeks are simply irrational mystics. The cause of each of these mystical beliefs is different, some being worse than others.

4

Not all mystics and faithful belive in God so I’m not sure that is a neccesary requirement. Also I can’t imagine anything that could be accepted as evidence for God, even if it was. The word should be defined first so that it could actually have a meaning.

By the way Voltaire also said:

“What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il7Kxw9TDBc

Now these tests seem very interesting, but the only thing I can’t find is: “how much?”.

How many more belivers had better results than non-believers?

How do they act in their daily lives? Which group is more violent? Which group has more jobs?

Which group has a higher living standard?

I also think this involves a lot more psichology than philosophy.

I mean yeah sure you might be more positive about your surgery, if you were religious, but same is true if I drugged you with cocaine.

Religious people may not fear death as much as most people do since they have low self esteem and don’t really have much to loose.

They might think even if they die Jesus will save them and open the gates of heaven for them “so there’s nothing to fear”.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”

George Bernard Shaw

5

… NOT TO ARGUE FOR GOD, but to account for the apparent need of an otherwise rational population to revere something… noble? heroic?? divine??? I propose that humans have a need for reverence that accounts for faith;…

It’s possible, but my guess is that that is not the key reason. I think the key reason is the human need for “meaning”. At an epistemiological level, humans have used god to explain things they otherwise cannot, and also to explain the unpredictable. At the level of ethics, God (or at least the Emersonian notion of “compensation” and retribution) can help provide a “background” reason for acting on principle. Emotionally, men need purpose – it is not a choice, just a biological fact, and religions with their God(s) offer ultimate purpose(s).

6

My starting position is that the faithful are irrational mystics. I will go beyond it as soon as you provide proof of God’s existence.

Proof of God’s existence is a non-starter, however if you consider the results of medical research, e.g. that the faithful have a health advantage over those who have a negative view of faith, then the issue of God’s existence becomes less important than the apparent benefit of reverence to well being.

“It’s not always clear where the line of objectivity is in this research, and because of this the debates about the gritty theoretical details will doubtless continue, sometimes heatedly, far into the future. Still, the increasing sophistication of research in the field of religion and health points to a growing awareness among scientists and physicians that the relationship between spiritual life and practices and well-being is real, has impacts on people’s lives, and demands to be better understood.”

http://www.patheos.c…alth-–-part-ii/

Perhaps God’s a placebo for well being; a false identity, but having a real effect on health nonetheless. The links I’ve provided are intended to show evidence that reverence for something godlike is inevitable and necessary to well being; the proof is the persistence of faith in an age of reason.

7

The topic is the need for reverence, not if mystical beliefs are irrational. Mystical beliefs typically offer reverence for something, even if it is reverence in the wrong ideas. Rationality could perhaps be viewed as reverence for the right ideas.

Rationality is the source of morality: it is the means by which we determine what the right ideas are. It can’t also be the result: reverence for the right ideas. If it is, then you’re just describing a circular argument, not a rational philosophy.

Rationality is the source of reverence for ideas like individualism and freedom, but it’s not that reverence.

Proof of God’s existence is a non-starter

That is the definition of irrationality.

Proof of God’s existence is a non-starter, however if you consider the results of medical research, e.g. that the faithful have a health advantage over those who have a negative view of faith, then the issue of God’s existence becomes less important than the apparent benefit of reverence to well being.

“It’s not always clear where the line of objectivity is in this research, and because of this the debates about the gritty theoretical details will doubtless continue, sometimes heatedly, far into the future. Still, the increasing sophistication of research in the field of religion and health points to a growing awareness among scientists and physicians that the relationship between spiritual life and practices and well-being is real, has impacts on people’s lives, and demands to be better understood.”

http://www.patheos.c…alth-–-part-ii/

Perhaps God’s a placebo for well being; a false identity, but having a real effect on health nonetheless. The links I’ve provided are intended to show evidence that reverence for something godlike is inevitable and necessary to well being; the proof is the persistence of faith in an age of reason.

The notion that irrationality is good for your health is just as obviously ridiculous as the suggestion that your link contains scientific research.

8

Rationality is the source of morality: it is the means by which we determine what the right ideas are. It can’t also be the result: reverence for the right ideas. If it is, then you’re just describing a circular argument, not a rational philosophy.

To put it bluntly, I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. A need for purpose drives people, and it would be hard to argue that somehow rationality produces purpose on its own. It’s sort of like the choice to life - you have to choose to pursue something before you can even define the purpose of morality. Rand would say it is your own life, while others say god. I don’t mean precisely the choice to life, but something implicit once you start forming concepts.

Plus you misconstrued Devil’s post, the last sentence in that post is clear on a “placebo for well being”. Take the quote in the OP: “The highest thing in a man is not his god. It’s that in him which knows the reverence due a god.” Now, what would Rand mean by “reverence due a god”? What does reverence to a god mean?

9

Rationality could perhaps be viewed as reverence for the right ideas.

That’s a good point, and I agree. I also agree that reverence for the wrong ideas has been the source of much pain and suffering in the world. My primary interest here is whether or not reverence, per se, is essential to human nature, and accounts for the persistence of faith in spite of reason or political efforts to suppress it.

10

Not all mystics and faithful belive in God so I’m not sure that is a neccesary requirement. Also I can’t imagine anything that could be accepted as evidence for God, even if it was. The word should be defined first so that it could actually have a meaning.

I’m fairly sure God, defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and Creator of the universe, isn’t a necessary requirement. Reverence can be divided as religious and secular, and further divided between objects of reverence. Again, my interest is in reverence as a human need; not the validity of a particular object of reverence.

11

I think the key reason is the human need for “meaning”.

Then we may agree in principle. I think reverence precedes meaning, i.e. something captures our attention (takes our breath way), and it naturally follows that we try to derive some meaning from it. If we weren’t reverent by nature, then it’s likely we wouldn’t reflect on sunsets, rainbows or starry nights; at least I’m not aware of other members of the animal kingdom pausing from their daily routines to study such events.

Emotionally, men need purpose – it is not a choice, just a biological fact, and religions with their God(s) offer ultimate purpose(s).

I need purpose to go to work; I need reverence to make work fulfilling. Religions offer God(s) like governments offer security; they profit from responding to needs they cannot satisfy.

12

The notion that irrationality is good for your health is just as obviously ridiculous as the suggestion that your link contains scientific research.

The Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Columbia University, University of Denver, University of Pittsburgh, University of Miami, US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. If these institutions for scientific research lack the credentials necessary for an Objectivist like yourself to take seriously, then dismiss them. I’m not asserting “that irrationality is good for your health”; I’m suggesting that human beings have an apparent need for reverence, based on statistical evidence and medical research.

13

The Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Columbia University, University of Denver, University of Pittsburgh, University of Miami, US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. If these institutions for scientific research lack the credentials necessary for an Objectivist like yourself to take seriously, then dismiss them. I’m not asserting “that irrationality is good for your health”; I’m suggesting that human beings have an apparent need for reverence, based on statistical evidence and medical research.

No, you are suggesting that reverence for something godlike (which is irrational) has medical benefits. And you’re not providing statistical evidence and medical research, you are providing some statistics that are evidence for nothing.

It’s the same exact fallacy being used to argue for socialized healthcare, gun control, and various other Japanese or European restrictions on freedom: they live a couple of years longer, therefor everything they do differently from Americans is good.

1 Like
14

To put it bluntly, I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. A need for purpose drives people, and it would be hard to argue that somehow rationality produces purpose on its own. It’s sort of like the choice to life - you have to choose to pursue something before you can even define the purpose of morality. Rand would say it is your own life

No, she wouldn’t say that. She would say (well, repeat, because she already said it) the exact opposite: that productive work is the central purpose of a man’s life, and that reason is the source of that purpose.

She would argue (as she has, feel free to look it up in the Lexicon, under “purpose” coincidentally enough) exactly what you’re saying would be hard to argue: that rationality produces purpose on its own. What reason is is a given, and what the proper purpose of a man’s life is (productiveness) is also a given precisely because it is the logical consequence of reason.

And the way it ties into this thread is that, since what reason is is a given, what reason isn’t is by definition irrational. So any discussion of the benefits of thing X (whatever that may be) cannot possibly get passed whether X is rational or irrational. In this case, reverence of something godlike (which the OP already admitted he cannot and doesn’t want to provide proof for) is obviously irrational.

My position is that irrational things are not beneficial. That includes the irrational thing the OP suggested is.

As for the notion that some irrational things are “a need”, all I can do is repeat the same question I asked (and watched go unanswered) in the other thread Devil made the same exact claim in: a need to achieve what purpose? It’s certainly not the purpose Ayn Rand believed should properly be the central purpose of a man’s life. That purpose results from rationality, and its only needs are rational.

So, for the second time this week: What purpose is going to be achieved, by filling this need for reverence for something godlike?

15

I think reverence precedes meaning, …

… …

I need purpose to go to work; I need reverence to make work fulfilling.

I think it is the other way around: purpose and meaning come first. They are (almost) biological drivers. Coupled with (biological) human reason, these lead to judgments about concrete meanings and purposes. Apply these judgments, we can then be reverent of things to which we give meaning. For instance, I have never, ever felt any reverence for nature. They definitely don’t leave me unmoved; but, even the most beautiful sunset, sea-scape, mountain-scape, etc. evokes no sense of reverence at all.

16

So, for the second time this week: What purpose is going to be achieved, by filling this need for reverence for something godlike?

Since you’ve become red and bold font with me, I’ll try to respond to this first. The purpose to be achieved is well being. Going back to your earlier question, “… A was applied to B, and the result was God… What is B”, ‘A’ (wisdom) was applied to ‘B’ (curiosity) and the result was (a concept of) God. In terms of this tread, “A Reason for Reverence”, I suggest the reason is the pursuit of happiness; not a particular object of the pursuit, e.g. a noble, heroic or godlike being.

I generally agree with your position that irrational things are not beneficial. I believe we are mostly at odds over your conclusion that irrational things imply irrational pursuits; I don’t believe that’s necessarily so. The pursuit of happiness is rational, and can be a rational value in itself. The studies I’ve pointed to indicate that reverence for something positive, e.g. a beneficent divinity or a heroic being, enhance health, whereas a reverence for something negative, e.g. a vengeful divinity or a craven being, impede health. Put more simply, a positive outlook is healthier than a negative one.

Your comments about the fallacy being used to argue for socialized healthcare, etc, is essentially that the ends don’t justify the means. In terms of restrictions on individual freedom, you are preaching to the choir and I agree. My argument isn’t that individuals ought to revere something rational or irrational; it’s that reverence for something positive (which is only validated by the individual pursuing it) is part of being human.

17

For instance, I have never, ever felt any reverence for nature. They definitely don’t leave me unmoved; but, even the most beautiful sunset, sea-scape, mountain-scape, etc. evokes no sense of reverence at all.

I’m most curious about this view, and the degree to which it influences Objectivism in general. In an interview with Phil Donahue, Phil questioning Ayn Rand about the universe evoking reverence, her response was very similar to yours; she preferred city skylines to the cold and distant stars. I can only respectfully suggest that according to statistical evidence (I’ve provided, but readily available by alternate sources), this represents the minority view of individuals globally, for which the natural universe does evoke a sense of reverence. I share a more Jeffersonian view…

“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition … it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is … a fabricator of all things.” ~ Jefferson, in a letter to Adams

… and…

“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” ~ Jefferson

Taken together, these two statements (now two centuries past), along with contemporary polling of belief vs non-belief, imply that the apparent need for reverence hasn’t been diminished by scientific advances or attempts by governments to suppress it. Let me ask you this… Suppose God(s) was successfully removed as a concept. Do you believe the concept of man as a heroic being would satisfy the majority of those for whom the natural universe does evoke a sense of reverence?

18

An interchange between Andrei and Kira from We The Living, pg 107

“Do you believe in God, Andrei?”

“No.”

“Neither do I. But that’s a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they’d never understand what I meant. It’s a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do—then, I know they don’t believe in life.”

“Why?”

“Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.”

19

"According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: “Today I decided to be an atheist.” Branden then reports her as later explaining, “I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong.” [branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand’s “second reason” is that “no proof of the existence of God exists.”

http://solohq.org/Ar…t_1_of_4).shtml

Is this sufficient to satisfy the needs of those for whom the natural universe evokes a sense of reverence?

20

Is this sufficient to satisfy the needs of those for whom the natural universe evokes a sense of reverence?

Probably not. But you are identifying that it is an evocation of a feeling of reverence.