I was just using that as an example of religions/religious people who put their god in a tiny box. Really? Your god cares what sort of underwear you wear? This is the god who you say created the universe...?

I think that the communist disease cuts across religions and atheists alike.

Jan, likes the Whiskeypalian term

The question was how the book would help when its title and description imply it advocates a "common ground" between reason and faith and between Ayn Rand and Christianity in particular? Is that really what it does?

I haven't discouraged KSilver from asking questions, let alone wielding a sledge to hammer them. On the contrary:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25...
(Permalinks were a very good addition to gg.)

There are many people brought up and influenced for decades by religious ideas and all kinds of ideas around them, but this is secular America, not the Middle Ages, and they thrive in spite of damaging influences, find strong appeals to Atlas Shrugged, and naturally have a lot of questions.

me? I did neither...

I was raised an Episcopalian, or, as we call ourselves, a Whiskeypalian. I have no trouble with alcohol. We were basically Catholics without the rules. I just had problems with the fact that my fellow Whiskeypalians helped communists at every turn.

I agree with everybody: you did a great job. You might also be very good at suggesting where KS should look for good sources of those basics. I am too much of a rookie to dare make such suggestions with any confidence in my choices.
Thank you, Z.

I think that there is (or can be) significant agreement. Objectivism is at its core a search for what IS, i.e. reality. The key - and this is the REALLY tough part - is the rejection of preconceived notions and the willingness to re-examine absolutely everything. That can sometimes be too much for some people, as they have already made up their minds about certain things and are unwilling to postulate the possibilities of difference. The first thing that must be acknowledged in the search for truth is that you didn't start with it in the first place. ;)

I am in complete agreement with the scientific method and hold to the assertion that even matters of so-called religion can be tested for truth. I do not hold that there are certain truths that are "unknowable", but I will concede that my own personal limitations may indeed preclude me from a complete understanding of some things and that such I may have to accept "on faith" at first.

So there, world!

And here I thought I had charmed everyone with my 'cliffnotes of reality'. Sigh.

Jan

Good grief. If you are going to downvote, at least cite why.

I actually have a very thorough understanding of Darwinism. And, I am still waiting for anyone to show me a single example of any organism evolving into a different type of organism. The closes we can come is showing examples of certain evolutionary changes within a strata. I would love for you to show me a single proven example. There are plenty of examples of fish evolving into different types of fish, birds to birds, etc, but I challenge you to show me a single example of an organism evolving into a different type of organism. And if you can't do that, then you are no closer to proving evolution than any other theory out there. All you can prove through evolution would be that the bugs that crawled out of the stew became more evolved buys. Example, Science is now close to stating with some certainty that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The reason they can prove that is that birds are, at the basic structural level, just smaller versions of dinosaurs.
However, science has no proof at all to show what type of organism we evolved from.
You have now stated twice that it is intellectually lazy to explore a theory that requires at its base, faith in something unproven. However, you have not shown me any reason to believe in evolution that doesn't begin with having to take certain basic assumptions on faith. How is it lazy to explore one theory that you believe is wrong, and I can't prove correct, but it is not intellectually lazy to explore a different theory that I have confusions over, and you can't prove. Both sides have to take certain assumptions on faith, otherwise the theory falls apart.
Just a few months ago several of the basic assumptions that were being used to explain the Big Bang THEORY, turned out to be nothing more than space dust in a scan. Prior to that discovery, physicists used undulations in the outer reaches of the universe as proof of the cataclysmic explosion. Now we know those undulations were not undulations at all, but rather, as I said, space dust.
I still maintain that I think it is intellectually lazy to rule out any theory until we have evidence to call for that.
The scientific method you accused me of knowing very little about calls for narrowing down variables until we have an experiment that we can actually measure to attempt to prove. By ruling out theories without actionable, evidentiary reasons to do so seems to me a violation of the basic scientific method. If we were attempting to discover the chemical makeup of water, but we refused to consider the existence of an hydrogen atom right off the bat, we would have a hard time making that discovery.
To quote another hero of mine- "once we rule out the impossible, what's left is the most probable" (Sherlock Holmes), Until we can scientifically rule out a theory, we shouldn't.
Both sides have a lot of work to do before they can say they have proven anything as possible, probably, or impossible.

There is no "story behind existence". It is what it is. 'Existence exists' is the primary. Our task is to understand its nature, not find a story outside existence to explain it. There is no outside of existence. That whole approach is wrong and meaningless from the beginning.

You don't have to prove there is no god. If someone claims there is such a thing it is up to him to explain what it means and prove it. When he doesn't, then in logic you reject it out of hand as the arbitrary as if nothing had been said. That is what atheism means: a-theism, the rejection of theism. You don't have to "understand everything" to know how to think rationally, which does not require "proving" every claim "one way or the other".

I get it ewv. And, I agree with every comment you've posted on this thread. You are always concise, articulate, well versed, and just plain fun to read.

And, you're a sledgehammer.

An awesome f**king sledgehammer who is unstoppable. A pitbull.

I am your biggest fan.

But, you're scary ewv.

Especially to someone who has just peaked their head in the door, and is asking (very politely I might add) if he can come in and hang out with us for a minute because, while he really likes what he's read of Rand so far, he's having trouble reconciling a few things.

I agree with you on the matter or religion. And, KSilver3 is on his way. With a whole life of worship behind him, he's going to be a hard nut to crack, but he's primed and ready.

Let's say we don't tell him to f**k off just yet, ok?

You want to read more on the topic KSilver3? You go ahead and read Mark's book. We'll be here when you're ready for the deeper dive.

nobody takes a point away from my jan. nobody

After my rather long lifetime of questioning religion, I've settled into the agnostic mode -- don't know, can't know, why bother? The problem I have is with "blind faith" rather than simple Reason.

Because of a world being run by the proponents of blind faith, it's it deep doo-doo. While in the beginning I latched onto Rand's atheism, looking back it was a very bad PR move which serves only to cause rejection of Objectivism by the unthinking who simply slammed the door on it. With some seven billion people on this planet who cannot agree on much of anything, it's not looking good, is it?

xenok, I always enjoy your comments

agreed

welcome back ewv. looking forward to comments on this post

Why would that help? The full title is "The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground" and the product description says "the author builds a case for common ground between Faith and Reason". There is no common ground; they are opposites.

Gottcha. I am agnostic: The reason is that I cannot disprove the existence of god or gods. (Ayn Rand dislikes agnosticism as 'trying to please both sides'. This is one of the things I disagree with her about.)

Additionally, I get along 'least well' with the deists who put their God in a tiny box: You cannot [drink alcohol] because God doesn't want you to.

This also works for the atheists who put reality in a tiny box: There can be no [such thing as an afterlife] because that is religious stuff and therefore does not exist.

Whatever exists, exists as part of reality. And the concept of 'proven' is much bigger than my brain. I will stick with a contextual definition - eg Newton's Laws apply to macroscopic but sub-stellar motion that occurs at moderate speeds.

Jan

KSilver: You are getting warmer, much warmer. Good work.

"I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting _against_ religion—I am fighting _for_ reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through _reason_." Ayn Rand, 1963, in Letters of Ayn Rand, ed by Michael Berliner

Coaldigger: Well stated. If you don't mind I will keep a copy of this. Thanks.

Jan-
You, and many others here, misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that since we "are no closer to finding out how- therefore divine intervention is required." What I am saying is that until we have definitive proof of any theory, we shouldn't rule out other theories. This is where the militant preachers of atheism get me. I am more than willing to explore the theory that there is no God, but I don't want to rule out the theory that there is one either. I will look at all theories until they can be disproven. The militant preachers of science and atheism say, "have faith, we will prove it one day". How is that any different from saying "have faith, you will meet god one day." Both sides require faith to follow their theories. However, the atheists scoff at the faith necessary to believe in God, while the religious fanatics scoff at science. I am no where near either of those extremes. I will explore the realities of my existence in the hopes of finding proof. Until I find proof, my exploration will continue in all directions necessary to gather the information I need.

Atheism is the rejection of religion, not a religion. Objectivism is a philosophy, not "small government". Glenn Beck does not "fit into a Objectivist concept". Religious rationalizations and Biblical parables are irrelevant.

Any mystical beliefs are contrary to reason, regardless of immediate "assertions about the universe". The method of thinking is wrong and has consequences as far as it spreads.

Well said.