His actual position makes reference to probability, and is therefore not the correct one at all. The Objectivist notion of certainty has nothing whatsoever to do with probability. Calling the existence of a god “highly improbable” is at once a capitulation to theism and an abuse of the concept of probability.
This brings up a good point. If Dawkins allows any degree of possibility at all to the existence of God, then why is he not persuaded by Pascal’s Wager? I see the Wiki article gives Dawkins’ response to Pascal, but I judge Pascal wins here because he is appealing to an expectation value based on an infinite gain, while the loss Dawkins points out is always finite.
God didn’t have to, in this case, create existence itself (that’s impossible)
If the thing we’re discussing the existence of didn’t create existence, then we’re not talking about god. If anything, that suggests Dawkins’ definition of god is pretty poor.
I’ve looked through Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” again, and the only reason he does not rule out the possibility of something like a god is because you can’t prove the nonexistence of something. So, perhaps his use of “probable” in his definition of 6 isn’t the best use of the term. In any case, his position is that the idea of God is as unlikely as anything that isn’t self-contradictory can be to a finite consciousness, which, I think, is roughly what Objectivists mean by arbitrary. Its the same as the assertion that there is a flying teapot between Earth and Mars (to use Bertrand Russell’s example, which Dawkins quotes), you can’t prove it doesn’t exist, but to say it does is to be “talking nonsense.”
“Innate moral feelings” and “moral intuitions” are examples of appeals to mysticism. No God is required, just the technique of revelation as means to knowledge.
… many atheists do fall into the pragmatic/utilitarian camp, or argue that we have a somewhat innate moral sense that can be explained by evolution (there actually are some pretty good arguments that human’s have evolved with emotions that lead them to adopt a benevolent morality).
(LOL, by “benevolent morality” you mean altuism? )
These are interesting points. Yes if these “moral intuitions” come out of thin air, then they are appeals to mysticism, that seems pretty clear (although not clear to some atheists I guess). But what if, as some biologists claim, they are actually just natural instincts developed by evolution? Ayn Rand said that humans have no natural instincts (correct me if I’m wrong about that), but most animals do, so why not humans as well? Also, perhaps she did not have access to the latest scientific research on the subject (since most of this seems to be pretty new research). What would the implications be to Objectivism? (If any?)
I have read (somewhat uncomfortably) articles that talk about Altruism found in nature, a natural instinct in some animals. Developed via evolution. I guess if it was a proven fact that wouldn’t necessarily change anything. Just because something is an instinct doesn’t automatically make it good. Some animals instinctually kill their young when they feel danger is around, then there’s those voles that jump off cliffs… lol…
It would however end up being more fodder for those who preach the virtues of altruism.
(LOL, by “benevolent morality” you mean altuism? )
Any concern for strangers is not altruism, it may be benevolence. There is a difference between respecting and sympathizing with other human beings because they are human beings and feeling you must sacrifice your own values to their desires. General concern for others is rational (better to live in a world where someone will likely give you a lending hand than to ignore you), and also is a trait based in evolutionary advantage. Those who helped others were publicly showing how well off they were, that that food or whatever wasn’t valuable to them, and so they were more desirable mates. You shouldn’t compromise your values to help others, or ever help people you don’t like, but if it costs you very little and it will help someone (who you have no reason to think is bad person) then why not help?
An example is Roark feeling bad when Mallory was drunk in his apartment and cried. Roark felt bad because he was seeing human suffering and sympathized with the plight of another rational being. It wasn’t altruism, it was benevolence. Its not a virtue onto itself, but it is rational (in a similar way as a benevolent universe premise is rational).
LOL, I was teasing, I understand your position. The New Atheist movement on the other hand does hold that the commonly accepted morality, altruism/self-sacrifice, is good. Not once that I know of have they stood out to reject that morality, and sadly it’s the same morality that the religions support. They just try to come to it via different means than religion, through “innate feelings” or “intuitions” - possibly developed through evolution. Whereas Objectivism obviously rejects that morality entirely, and presents a different one. This is why, in my opinion, the New Atheists fail in their ultimate goal. They can be so logical and rational, up to that point, then it fizzles out…
Ayn Rand said that humans have no natural instincts (correct me if I’m wrong about that), but most animals do, so why not humans as well?
There are no instincts in human behavior. There are reflexes, and capacities and even involuntary movements (heart beat) but no instincts. The reason why is the conceptual consciousness which has control over everything encompassed by ‘behavior’.
I have read (somewhat uncomfortably) articles that talk about Altruism found in nature, a natural instinct in some animals. Developed via evolution. I guess if it was a proven fact that wouldn’t necessarily change anything. Just because something is an instinct doesn’t automatically make it good. Some animals instinctually kill their young when they feel danger is around, then there’s those voles that jump off cliffs… lol…
If it is instinctual behavior by an non-sentient creature it cannot be ethical behavior because ethics does not apply without volition. Describing such behavior as ethical altruism is a fallacy on multiple grounds: anthropomorphizing, dropping the context of ethics, and equivocating the meaning of altruism.
)