True but I am not sure it is relevant. Entropy is a classical physic concept and there is growing evidence that classical physics is incomplete. The quantum physics of entropy, the log of the number of available states, produces very different results.

What "natural increase in order"? A temporary increase in order in one location can only be achieved by an equal or greater increase in disorder elsewhere. The increase in order which we observe is mostly thanks to the energy being dissipated by the sun. http://www.entropylaw.com/entropyprod...

If homo-sapiens is a product of evolution, which appears to be a gradual process that takes place over millennia, then it is reasonable to conclude that what we call "rationalism" is a capacity which also evolved. Or do you suggest that at some point there was a "singularity" where the capacity for rational thought suddenly appeared? That Is why I suggest it is a matter of difference of degree rather than kind.

I contend that it is a tired, old social construct which
is used to identify meditation and subconscious personal
conference in preparation for action. . the words which
we have come to use don't work very well. -- j
.

this is a perfect example of the conventional words
which we use, which are unable to contain the ideas
which ProfChuck was alluding to -- the natural increase
in order which we observe. -- j
.

I just brought your score back up to zero, professor,
since the subject does deserve consideration in the
way you have indicated -- IMHO. . the fact that order
can naturally arise out of disorder is fascinating. . we
humans are our closest proof, yet the cosmos holds
so much more which we hope to discover. . we have
no language for the unknown, and humankind has
used terms like God for centuries. . why not? . the
problem arises when it's used for human abuse or
for the discouragement of rational thought. -- j
.

I really don't think she did, sir. . she did not deal in
the supernatural or deities, since they are not measurable
nor available for rational analysis. . unfortunately, in
my humble opinion, she rejected out-of-hand anyone
who associated with religion in any way which implied
agreement, neglecting the fact that many people
have no other way to express themselves. . they
haven't learned the rational language which she
knew so very well. . and many would instantly fall
for objectivism if they understood. -- j
.

Intelligence is the ability to comprehend reality and make sense of it. "Spontaneous order" and all other aspects of reality must exist before any intelligence can attempt to understand them. Intelligence is a product of consciousness, and existence must precede consciousness. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...

Should people pray to this intelligent agency and think doing so could affect what happens in the future? Should people spend time worshiping this intelligent agency?

If Ayn Rand wrote only what "she had been allowed to by the press," she would never have written Atlas Shrugged. She made it explicitly clear that she was an atheist, and never gave any other "impression." I take her at her word.

There is no evidence that lower animals use or require concepts to live. Primitive "problem solving" and perceptual awareness are not what is meant by man as the "rational animal".

Ayn Rand emphatically rejected belief in the supernatural both in her philosophy and personally. There is no conflict.

It's not even a definition. It's a list of alternate, conflicting word usages exploited to deliberately equivocate on a false premise. Ayn Rand rejected all of them.

silly? how about just plain old stupid.

Assertions are down the hall, sir.

I think this reflects a degree of hubris. There is growing evidence that many of the so called "lower animals" have the ability to reason. Corvids (members of the crow family), for example exhibit communication and problem solving skills as do the cetecacians. I suggest that the difference between human intelligence and that of the other animals is more a difference of degree than of kind.

So is there some alternative to existence? Does
some God have to stand over 2+2 to make it=4?
Is there some alternative to the irrefutable axiom
that "A us A"? --More nonsense.

What if we redefined God in the 10 Commandments. For instance:

1. I (myself) am the Lord, thy (my) God
2. Thou (I) shalt have no other gods before me (myself) - In other words, pay attention to your needs, before those of others.
3. Thou (I) shalt not make unto thee (myself), any graven image - No worship of gods like the Sun, the Moon, animals, etc. which are many times idolized.
4. Thou (I) shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God (myself), in vain - No disrespecting yourself.
5. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy - Take one day off, a week, to rest and contemplate the rest of your life.
The rest of the Commandments are basic rules of life.

If viewed in this manner, removing "religion" from them, I don't see why the 10 Commandments couldn't be a solid set of rules to live by, for those who don't believe.

I am not trying to re-write the Commandments for those who do believe in a God...I'm just trying to show that they can apply to all of us, if taken in the proper context. Perhaps Ayn Rand even contemplated this...where it might have looked she believed in God, when she really didn't (I'm not saying if she did or did not).

What kind of garbage is this?--Either someone
wants to just trash Ayn Rand, or to distort her into
something he wants to see her as being, so he can
fit her into the premises he already has, so he can
have her and his irrationality too.