All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you have observed phenomena that cannot be [currently] explained by science, that is quite understandable and happens very often. As I said above, the human race does not hold all the answers to the Universe and many questions and answers come to light with more knowledge. Neither Objectivism or Ayn Rand claim to have all the answers or all the knowledge. What is claimed, though, is that if a natural phenomena is not understood by science, it simply means a limitation of our current knowledge, as opposed to defaulting to a God, or a deity.At some point, thunder and lightning were not scientifically understood, so the default was Zeus, and so on. If at any point God, if it exists, chooses to disclose to humans in a more material way than someone's conjecture and faith, then that would be proof of God's existence. Until then, it is no more than Zeus, or Ra, or Jupiter, or Buddha, or Allah, or any other deity. However, believing in a deity fills a certain void within our brains and often allows humans to function in a smoother, more peaceful (within oneself) way, as it eliminates the requirement to raise questions which many people have difficulty dealing with. In addition, faith calms the nerves because of a very much needed feeling of belonging, as in "God loves you." One has to make a choice - the truth, however uncomfortable, or faith, which provides comfort.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have not seen anywhere where Objectivism says anything about a reliance on the scientific method to discover reality. Nor is there anything about a mandatory adoption of an atheism, a theory about why a non-existent god does not exist. It leaves the proof for the non-existing god for the theists. The reason for being an atheist is that there is no evidence for a god. Also atheism is not a hypothesis or theory since those require something that exists to try to explain. There is no hypothesis or theory ever about 'nothing'. As a philosophy for living on Earth, Objectivism does not need the existence of a god for one to live a productive, happy life.
    Please tell me what scientific inquiry you made?
    It is not Objectivism that demands a lack of contradiction but reality which can have no contradiction, the human mind is quite capable of logical contradictions when one toys with reality but if may bite you back if you try to make the contradiction real. The only compliance required is from the nature of reality, do not try to contradict it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I probably should have added to what I wrote. Reason by itself is a mental faculty which uses logic as a tool. Faith uses the results of reason as though they are true and religion uses faith as its justification.
    A trance state is what is obtained by any wrong headed approach where one discards ones critical faculty and starts a process of selective thinking. A trance state permits a person to go through life normally except in the area of the selective thinking . That is why some of us, who are not comfortable with religion and believe that one should not be able to have a good life believing such stuff, are somewhat surprised by how well and apparently happy many religious persons are (not including my aunt who spent her whole life in fear of her God's wrath)
    In philosophy, a similar thing can happen when one runs with an idea without being critical about it, possibly ending in a society of seekers of death. How to get the critical faculties started again is the big question for the world. Open Objectivism might do it, but closed Objectivism already has a partially discarded critical faculty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello, Irshultis,

    I liked tour description of faith as reasoning without checking the truth of premises.

    You touched here on something I was observing for very long time. It has to do with the quality of thinking.

    Our minds seem to me enormously complex. We have an incredible logic processor. But we also have a fabulous imagination generator.

    I somehow conclude that the logician in us is more of a governor over all other functions of the mind. But that interaction, which I think is required for expression (i.e. communication to the others in the "tribe") among the logician, the imaginator,the emotioner etc.
    requires a meticulously careful (honest?) logician.

    The contamination that can comes from the other components must be recognized and given allowance. Please note that without those contaminants, no art would exist.

    Which brings me to another observation. Note that without proper acknowledgement and valuing of those contaminants, the art of development engineering would be indistinguishable from casino gambling with dice.

    And I have not even mentioned consciousness and sub-consciousness!

    You see how confusing it can get to just think what careful thinking means? Yet, we are all capable of doing it, if we are willing to learn it. Reminds me of what it takes to be a masterful piano player.

    Best wishes.

    Sincerely,
    Maritimus
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TomB666 8 years, 9 months ago
    More gas on the fire ;-)

    Here’s a simple question for all the theists. Do you believe in Zeus and the rest of the Roman and Greek gods? How about Odin and his Norse gods? Well then how about Rae and the other Egyptian gods? How about the gods of the Aztecs?

    NO?

    Then my being an atheist means I believe in one less god then you do. And when you figure out why you do not believe in any of the above mentioned gods, you should be able to understand why I do not believe in your one god.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And age 69 old dino does not recall atheists back then acting so uptight by what's become a their virtual ideological religion.
    Recall atheists not at all being in the closet about their opinions but they weren't crybaby going to court offended over the sight of religious symbols
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And as I recall (it's been almost 50 years) Rand herself said that whether you believe individual rights come from Natural Law and Reason, or are "endowed by our Creator", is a minor point, and long as you believe in correctly defined Individual Rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I appreciate your comment and can identify with it. I was born Catholic and had 12 years of good, classical, Catholic education. I then discovered Rand. It took me three years of wrestling with some ingrained ideas (in particular abortion and of course God), and doing a ton of reading. But in the end the priests had done perhaps too good of a job teaching Reason and Logic, and I went the other way: To being a pro-choice atheist, among other Objectivist positions. But I appreciate and respect your choice also.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Opinions and definitions of atheism by the religious may be misleading."

    Very true, and I would certainly hold the opposite to just as accurate. It is why I do not ask a Baptist about the beliefs of a Buddhist.

    "The word [atheism] means only an absence of belief in god or gods or deities."

    Here I must quibble. Beliefs become actions. If one is atheist, it means that one takes certain actions based on that belief (that no god or gods exist) just as a theist is one who acts based on the belief that his/her version of god (or gods) does in fact exist. One can not disassociate action from belief. This is why beliefs are so foundational and important. Philosophy is all about belief, but not because of the belief, but because of how people act as a result. It is the same for mathematics. We know that 2+2 = 4, but it is how we use the concept of the strength of a triangle which allows us to build fantastically strong structures.

    "The agnostic position of "I don't know" is like saying..."

    That all depends on whether or not one is satisfied with not knowing the answer to the question at hand. Some questions like whether or not there is an invisible miniature elephant have a relevance and value which is equatable to the size of said elephant! Other questions such as the notion of continued existence after death have far more significance. The question is really about how bad does one want to know the answer. The extension is are they willing to act on what they discover...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    [eyebrow raised]

    I'm being completely candid in this question: why would anyone seeking to understand the nature of God ask for advice or understanding from someone who denied God could exist in the first place? That's like an explorer being told not to find a new route to China because he would fall off the edge of the world...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I must choose between are conflicting Objectivist tenets: the one being a reliance on the scientific method to discover Reality and the second the mandatory adoption of atheism. I have tested Reality and found atheism to be a false hypothesis. Thus I must either hold to a belief in atheism in contradiction to my scientific inquiry, or I must hold to the results of my inquiry and discard the hypothesis of atheism. And as Objectivism demands a lack of contradiction, am I really being Objectivist to deny my own experience just for the sake of compliance?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I call it throwing gas on the fire. I have faith in my abilites and I know what they are. I still use a ruck sack for grocery shopping and do 20 to 30 kilos sometimes more.44 to 66 pounds toss it on my back and start humping ....I do not run down the stairs anymore and i do use muscle rub the next morning. I have faith in my abilities during my 70s but i can feel the onset of the 80's in my future. But then I have faith in the city bus or the taxi ...so far.

    I have no faith the libertarians will even attempt to grab the brass ring being offered this year though.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Latter Saints of the Day Not hardly. It's called an analogy you are trying to compare a kumquat (fruit) to a turnip (vegetable).

    Now slowly....Objectivism is a system of evaluating, and validating any other belief system. Doesn't matter what kind. Secular, religious, political, commercial business model, running the olympics. doesn't matter.

    It is not a belief system in and of itself So can use it where religion is concerned but it's not part of religion. same with political systems.

    However the price you pay is complete honest with your self. you must observe the nature of whatever, decide what is factual and what is not factual even what is a fact, decide if the result is something useful or not useful or might be useful, continue testing through observation that never stops, AND then apply your morals values ethics. Yours not the cabbage patch version. It's your kumquat it is not a rutabaga it's not an apple nor an orange.

    The outcome is validate, invalidate, and add if it's useful required changes. Lighting whole cities was valid but not useful with candles along came Edison and Tesla, more observation and testing voila whole cities were now lit up. Was it ethical and moral? That's your call.

    Some would make it a belief system but only i the context of believing in the value of a yardstick to be overy simplistic.

    We currently our featuring two types. Open and Closed. The close Objective discussions are pure philosophy near as i can tell. Open version applies findings directly to practical applications. Both are needed.

    So yes you can be religious and use objectivism. You can also be religious and apply subjectivism replacing hard facts throuogh observation and testing with mysticism. Personally I don't recommend it. Bungee jumping does not work well without the bungee.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Another way of looking at reason is that it uses logic as a tool and if one decides to only use true premises then reason will most likely give truths about reality. I say most likely because mistakes are possible in knowing whether the premises are true. Faith then is reason where logic is used without regard as to the truth of the premises. I say reason because there is no other way of using the brain for gaining knowledge about objective reality. I do not accept dreams, revealed knowledge, or other thoughts that might come into conscious awareness. An effort must be made using logic at least implicitly on premises to be considered reason. At least implicitly because that is how most humans use reason and thus do not really know if their conclusions have the possibility of being true or not.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi Michael,

    What I take on faith are those things that I have not proved for myself, but let others prove to my satisfaction. If I'm told I will burn my hand in fire, I will have faith in the truth of it, because I can see the fire and feel its heat. I also have faith that all matter is made up of atoms...at least until a better theory comes along.

    Defining Objectivism as a religion was not really my goal, so much as showing how it might be described as such, by following conventional definitions, like those in Merriam-Webster.

    I also just wanted to stir the pot...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Gotta unrest you. What part of it is based on faith and faith on what exactly? MW is correct but it's still not a religion but a support mechanism for any belief or control system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How maniy times a day do you pick up a kumquat and say wow isn't this a great turnip? Then turn around and announce you discovered dandelions?

    Just wondered, objectively asking?.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by bassboat 8 years, 9 months ago
    Yes. Objectivism is defined as the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 9 months ago
    Firstly, does religion always rely upon the existence of a deity? I can think of several examples where this is not the case.
    Secondly, The world as we see it appears to be the consequence of a collection of fundamental and intricate physical laws. Does this imply the existence of a supreme law giver or do we need to re examine what we mean by God?
    Thirdly: Atheism is based on a severe logical difficulty, that being finding a proof of the negative of a proposition. As Heinlein observed, "Atheism is just Godism turned up side down."
    If a religion is based on a testable set of logically defined axioms would it be anathema to Objectivism?
    When in doubt return to what you have accepted as first principals, examine them carefully for hidden assumptions, and then and only then draw conclusions.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo