I did not read every post-so if this idea was mentioned-I apologize. But, check out Deism, especially the World Union of Deists (I'm a member). For the committed Objectivist that needs to square AR and AS with a core belief that there is a first cause, a watchmaker, a singularity that was at the Big Bang or even a universal consciousness-I think it's a perfect fit. My personal experience-in my late 50's- is at the same time I discovered AR and AS I also came to grips with the organized religions I grew up with-and rejected them. It's a stunning coincidence (?) that the word and standard is REASON throughout both philosophy's. There is no damnation or judging. No take up YOUR cross, no guilt, church mortgages, sacrifice. It is not necessarily a religion of love or altruism-It is a personal creed based on reason. God isn't an older Jesus, I don't need to give away my paycheck to the looters and moochers. Deism allows me to look up and acknowledge through science and reason there might be a first cause without priestcraft. I consider it NO accident that my" awakening" regarding AR and rejection of what I think of as crazy religion developed contemporaneously. As usual I'm not really conveying this the way I want-but take a look at the World Union of Deist. I would say that Deism allows for a personal , unique look upwards and be anti-religion at the same time. Anti religion in the context of superstition , anti moocher, anti "not living my life for another man" It has allowed me to be a hard working, best I can be, make some money..... and keep it.

M; I'm not arguing for or against either side but here's the link: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-genetically...

I try to M, but also remember that there are some of those that will make a religion out of NASCAR. LOL

Welcome. Heinlein, Yea!

That reminds me of a term I learned in a small, Oklahoma town as a child--'40 mile Baptist', Good baptist within 40 miles of the church--outside of that radius, watch out.

Hello, Z,

I have known some people who were fanatically and irrationally atheists. With them, whenever you scratch the surface and try to ask why are they atheists, you find a big nothing. I am reasonably confident that they have not reached their stance through reason. It seemed to me that they accepted their atheism "on faith".

Remember, the entire spectrum in that Heinlein quote is populated. Unfortunately!

KS; you're getting warmer.

Oh, I think faith is not at the top in many churches today. Just as the NEA once was quoted as saying '"power" was their number one goal, not teaching children. Churches are today are very into money, being seen with the right people, and bending to the PC prevailing winds. They are into the flawed "giving back" philosophy of today's altruists. God is not the problem, preachers and congregations are the problem. God gets reinvented to suit the current trends, and sometimes barely mentioned at all. When the Pope pushes socialism, you know it is not about faith, and the welcome mat is not out for reason.

ewv; I think atheism being defined as a rejection of religion or not a religion kind of misses the point. Atheism is a conclusion reached through reason, and is the rejection of not-reason and not-rationality. What I wonder is who assigned it a title and identity. If the term disappeared and was replaced by 'thinking with reason' or reasoning, or rationality--I wonder how the arguments would evolve.

But good points.

Oh, Z!
What a quote! Thank you SOOO much!

Don't we have exactly half genetic inheritance from each of our parents? Sounds to me like a "macho" scientist hypothesizing that his genes are also "macho" and somehow overpower those coming from the female.
Has anyone established how many total traits humans exhibit? Isn't that required to establish a "majority"?

Well said.

Good quote!

My belief in education has always been that the true purpose is to learn 'How to Learn' and not what facts and things are taught. Learning is a process that should never cease throughout a life. The ability to do that is what separates us from all other life forms.

I'm afraid that our 'Ivy League brothers' have forgotten that.

One of my favorite quotes: "Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count." —Robert A. Heinlein

Very true, wigs

Txs Herb.

Txs.

An interesting DNA study released in the last few weeks states that in fact, more traits are passed on to the child from the father than from the mother. I don't remember why, but that'll piss of a lot of women (not that that's my intention)

I really enjoyed reading this response. Only correction I could make is that I am the father :). And it was my wife's perfect genes that created her the way she is if I accept the premise that it is genetic. She definitely didn't get her charming looks, intelligence, or wit from me.
You have just sent me down another rabbit hole. I have never heard of "thermodynamics driving the immergence and the evolution of DNA", but look forward to learning.
I've reached that age where I am far enough removed from college that I don't really get the chance to learn new things often. That's one of the things I am enjoying most here in the gulch- learning about new and interesting topics from like minded people. I'm sure one of these days I'll contribute something someone else may not have thought of, and provide value back to the community.

Hi KS,

I happen to be deeply committed to parenting. So, you caused some reaction with talking about randomness of your daughter's birth. I would like to submit for your consideration two concepts: life and choice.

There was recently on this site a discussion about thermodynamics driving the immergence and the evolution of DNA and life as a consequence. It certainly sounded plausible to me.

If you for a moment accept that as a plausible theory of the beginning of life, the rest is simple. The living things pretty clearly and through evolution demonstrate a driving force to reproduce and multiply. That drive, it seems to me, explains the desire to have children and help them to be the best they can be, i.e. "perfect".

Your daughter is farthest thing from "random". You chose her father, whether it was "one-night-stand", a life-long commitment, or something in between. Both of you brought together an accumulation of choices. We now know that we carry huge genetic "residues" from mating with Neanderthals some 50,000 years ago, So, you and your daughter's father brought together the choices of about 2000 generations of ancestors since the Neanderthal "uncle". That is about 4000 choices. Don't forget, even in a rape, one chooses. In giving birth, one chooses. 4000 choices is nothing compared to the trillions of possible combinations. Fortunately for us, huge numbers of "mistaken" combinations do not survive. Darwin demonstrated that.

I would like to convince you that your daughter is a most precious fruit of yours and her father's being. Cherish her because she is unique and farthest thing possible from a dice throw.

I hope that this is not too much. These are deep convictions on my part. Of course, in truth, just opinions, which I humbly submit for your consideration.

Good luck in your search!

I am not religious, so I cannot expect to address the whole of the mental conflict.
My opinion arises from what I see as blurring of the distinction between the church, belief in a God, and interpretations of the Bible. Those three things are separate in my mind, but most religious people (I think) would see them as just parts of a single concept.
I think the Bible can teach any individual many worthwhile lessons. Indeed, at one time it was to most knowledgeable history of our world. The most effective learning (even today) is by role models, and Bible stories are a good substitute, when an appropriate role model is not available.
Of these three parts, I think the actual church is the least compatible with Rand's ideas. The reason is the church preaches to its flock to be altruistic, instead of being altruistic itself. My distinction here will not be clear to everyone, due to the fact that many of the flock then behave altruisticly IN THE NAME OF the church. But the "church" is an entity separate from its members, just as a corporation is separate from all its stakeholders.

That is actually one of my favorite sections of the book. Not just for the reasons you stated, but for the fact that Dagny was intellectually confident enough to take the time to learn about the bum. Many of the so called heroes of the little man in today's society would have had their security kick Jeff off the moving train before they would ever lower themselves to speak to him.

We'll call it a rubber mallet, not a sledgehammer (just kidding obviously). In fact, your responses have been some of the more intriguing ones.
I have been misunderstood a bit. I am certainly not a religious fanatic. My mom was southern Baptist, and my dad was Jewish. You just can't reconcile those two, so I wasn't raised very religious (though mom did try). I came to the Episcopalian church upon meeting my wife, and was baptized as an adult. Within a few years, I became very disenchanted with the church, and haven't been back since. Most of the reason for that disenchantment came from the same place as Rand's. The church's constant struggle to force me to feel guilty for what I have in order to separate me from my wallet. I also did my own research and found the horrible history my church had throughout the cold war in aiding and abetting the communist party in America.
This is more of an intellectual exercise for me. I just feel that many of the proponents of science think they have much more evidence than they actually do. To call a matter settled is a dangerous thing to do unless it truly is.
If scientist stating that they are "Confident" in a theory was enough to make it true, we would be coming out of the ice age that was supposed to besiege us as we were warned of in the 70's, or learning about the extinct polar bear due to the global warming we were assured was coming in the 90's. In my opinion, the science isn't settled, and until it is, we shouldn't rule anything out in the quest for truth.
I do agree very much with your first post, that Rand didn't think it was a very important discussion to have. We should instead focus on our actual existence instead of trying to figure out the unknowable.
I have read every word Ayn Rand has written. Admittedly, I haven't read the myriad of books that have been written about her or Objectivism. I can honestly say that reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time in high school was my first pivot point in my life. I never felt right with the self-immolation and guilt that most modern day life seems focused on. I never felt that I should judge my success against those who had not accomplished their own. While I was lucky enough to miss the heart of the "me generation", its effects were starting to show in my youth. I never got a participation trophy, but I was always warned not to look so happy after winning something because it might hurt other's feelings.

1. There is "agreement" in that religion is a primitive form of philosophy seeking an integrated view of life and the world around us. And that is far better than the nihilists and pragmatists who don't want even that. But the answers provided are very different.

Ayn Rand once wrote (1965) in response to a letter from a priest:

"Perhaps I should add that I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy."

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it. I regard this as the best of all the attempts to reconcile reason and religion—but it is only an attempt, which cannot succeed. It may work in a limited way in a given individual's life, but it cannot be validated philosophically. However, I regard Aquinas as the greatest philosopher next to Aristotle, in the purely philosophical, not theological, aspects of his work. If you are a Thomist, we may have a great deal in common, but we would still have an irreconcilable basic conflict which is, primarily, an epistemo-logical conflict." -- Ayn Rand, in Letters of Ayn Rand, ed by Michael Berliner.

2. You were right to put "faith" in quotes in the context there in which you used it near the end of your post. Sometimes we accept ideas provisionally when we don't know the full validation but have reason to respect the source (such as in a physics text book). But properly, we never lose sight of that _status_ even if we are never able to go back and learn more about it.

That is a much different use of the term "faith" as having reasonable confidence than the religious acceptance on faith in contrast to reason.

As to "Existence exists", sure it does...I am not sure we have any disagreement on that. I am not suggesting there is a story outside of existence. I am saying we are still unable to understand The Story Of Existence itself (not something outside of it). As you said, our task is to understand the nature of existence. I think part of the conflict here may be simply in the term God...what is God anyway? It is quite possible that if we did have all the answers, the original poster would point towards the origin of existence and say "see, there is God". Where you may look at the same thing and not be willing to give it that title.

I have to disagree on your second point. There are lots of things that science can not explain and can only desperately grasp at possible scenarios. However, that does not mean those things do not exist simply because the scientist can not explain it yet. Suggesting that someone must prove God exists in order for God to exists is much the same as me telling you that God does exist unless you can prove me otherwise (yes I understand it is not exactly the same but still holds true).