Credo
Spirit
Sense
of
Life
Objectivists Headquarters
War
People
Store
Forum



Forum
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, October 9 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Michael Marrota's "Would you move to Galt's Gulch" thread got sidetracked with a discussion of whether Objectivists oversimplify religionists' views, and I had a hand in that distraction.  I've moved that portion of the discussion here so we can carry on with the topic's original thrust.  The following begins where my post #122 left off in that discussion:



Andy writes:

A Christian belief in God is a belief in a person who created the universe.  As we do know creators exist - human beings are creators par excellance - and we do know that astronomical observations indicate a universe that has evolved over the ages, I don't think you can automatically write off a person's belief that a creator of the universe exists as arbitrary or mystical. 
Yes, you've described the basic essense of monotheism, but there is nothing distinctively Christian about such a view.  Virtually all Muslims and religious jews (and probably members of many other faiths I don't even know of) share this view completely.  The question then becomes in what way has this creator revealed itself to humans -- that is where the defining traits of particular faiths come into being.  The concept of Christ and Christianity are absolutely inseparable, are they not?  The basic idea is that Christ was a divine human sent by God, he lived rougly 2000 years ago, he spread a message of peace and love, and then he died for our sins.  Maybe there is some nuanced version of Christianity that doesn't agree with this, but I've sure never encountered it (and I was raised Lutheran, and have known Christians of many stripes all of my life).  And quite frankly, to believe these specific tenets about Christianity is in principle like believing in Santa Clause.  And Dean is therefore right to term this belief 'ridiculous'. 




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, October 9 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Here is what I think is a better response to Andy --

"A Christian belief in God is a belief in a person who created the universe.  As we do know creators exist - human beings are creators par excellance - and we do know that astronomical observations indicate a universe that has evolved over the ages, I don't think you can automatically write off a person's belief that a creator of the universe exists as arbitrary or mystical.  "

No, their answer is 100% arbitrary. Whether we want to call it evil is another question.   Tibor Machan dealt with this question on another thread and did a good job of pointing out the key error that they make and I think you are making when you give the "creationist" position any level of further consideration or respect.  Here is what he had to say on a recent ID thread.


 "More substantively, ID proponents commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The concept of "intelligent design" properly formed rests on the prior properly formed concept, "faculty of intelligence," which itself rests on the properly formed prior concept "human brain." Yet, if ID is responsible for the design of the human brain, it both preceded and succeeded that human brain. How could that be? To quote a famous lady, "Blank out!"
 
 
 
 - Jason




Post 2

Monday, October 10 - 12:34amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Spot on, Jason.

Michael




Post 3

Monday, October 10 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Pete,

I only just noticed you started another thread in response to my statements in the "Galt's Gulch" thread.  I already posted answers in the old thread.  Sorry about making a hash of what you're trying to do, which makes good sense.  If there is any further discussion, I'll post my answers here.

Andy




Post 4

Monday, October 10 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Pete,
And Dean is therefore right to term this belief 'ridiculous'.
Dean is not qualified to term beliefs of which he is ignorant "ridiculous".  Furthermore, his critique of Christianity is predicated upon his own peculiar definition of the term.  That is what I am criticizing.  I am not making any argument for Christian beliefs, as you and Jason seem to be believe.  I am objecting to facile judgments of matters, especially when it comes to slapping on labels like "evil", that are the antithesis of Objectivism.

Andy




Post 5

Monday, October 10 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Andy,

Oops... reposting my response to you from the other thread here.

Nice try, but gravity seeping into higher dimensions would be an indication of their existence. For example, we can't directly detect quarks, but they're part of the strongest theory of physics to date. Are they just arbitrary add-ons? I think not. It's not like these theories just made these things up for no reason. There's logic behind it no matter how you try to spin it. God, on the other hand...

Sarah



Post 6

Monday, October 10 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Teleology is a "logical", if you consider the psychological arrow of time may not be the same as the thermodynamic arrow of time. The universe may be "acausal" and apparently "intelligently designed" from our psychological perspective.

Teleology -
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory -
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html

Scott



Post 7

Monday, October 10 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,
Nice try, but gravity seeping into higher dimensions would be an indication of their existence.
You missed my point (and my questions), but then I could have put it better.

We would only know of gravity seepage if we tested for it.  The fact that we cannot test for it and may never be able to doesn't make the hypothesis ludicrous.  If it explains a lot and is uncontradicted by observation, that hypothesis may end up carrying a lot of weight.  Just like string theory.  If describing quarks as tiny vibrating strings instead of dimensionless points appears to explain things better, we may come to prefer it despite the inability to prove it.

So what I'm getting at is this:  When it comes to explaining things for which we lack evidence, it's not the hypothesis that is irrational (provided it is uncontradicted by observation).  It's the manner in which we judge the merit of a hypothesis that is rational or irrational.  Because none of us are mind-readers there are limits to the assessments of rationality we can make about others who hold beliefs for which there is no evidence for or against.

Andy




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, October 10 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Andy,
The fact that we cannot test for it and may never be able to doesn't make the hypothesis ludicrous.
Yeah, it would. An untestable hypothesis would never fly in any science. And we can test string theory, in principle, we just need higher energies than our accelerators can produce right now. We can't test for God, even in principle, by his very nature.

Sarah



Post 9

Monday, October 10 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Not to quibble, but we cannot test for string theory.  First, we have only mathematical approximations of what a string would be.  We haven't even gotten the math precise enough to make testable predictions.  Second, strings may not be testable in principle depending on their nature.  Finally, we don't have any means of testing for them now.  That said, I think string theory has a lot going for it.  Is that irrational?  No.  It's a tentative judgment of a hypothesis based upon the available evidence.

Furthermore, untestable hypotheses do fly in science.  Look at the legs the Big Bang theory has had all these years.  Parts of it have been born out, but its essence - i.e. the Big Bang - remains beyond any possibility of testing.  Again, my criticism of Dean that has led us here is not whether this or that bit of metaphysics or cosmology is true.  It's that we should tread lightly before denouncing others as ridiculous, irrational, or evil for holding beliefs that remain uncontradicted by evidence.  Science has shown us that the universe is a lot stranger than any of thought just one hundred years ago, so I don't think it's prudent to put the blinkers on when it comes to considering the ultimate nature of reality.

Andy




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, October 10 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Look at the legs the Big Bang theory has had all these years.  Parts of it have been born out, but its essence - i.e. the Big Bang - remains beyond any possibility of testing.

The Big Bang is testable.  It predicts the molecular make-up of the universe and also the 'temperature' of the universe to name just a couple of things.  It has passed the tests.  That's another thing that good science does.  It makes predictions that are verifiable.  What prediction does "God created the heavens and the earth" make?




Post 11

Monday, October 10 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jody,

You're confusing things.  The standard model of cosmology labeled the Big Bang did make testable predictions which were wrong in very important ways.  Inflation cosmology revised the standard model to correct its failures.  That part of the Big Bang theory that hypothesizes that the universe began as a singularity that went "bang" - hence, the Big Bang - remains untestable.  Now we have the brane hypothesis which overthrows the standard model completely and allows for a cyclical universe with no origin.

In short, we really don't have clue what the origin of the universe is or even if had an origin at all.  We do have a number of intriguing ideas which may never be testable.  So, I'm not inclined to beat up on anyone because of his notions on this score.

Andy




Post 12

Monday, October 10 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jody,

As a courtesy to Pete who started this thread for this discussion, I'm answering you here instead of in the "Galt's Gulch" thread.
Do you think all of these laws stem from Marxism?
If all of these are explicitly Christian laws, then why were they also laws in the officially atheist Communist states?  And how does the spotty enforcement of decrepit blue laws compare to the significant intrusions upon our lives for socialist statutes mandating compulsory public education, environmental controls of land and production, the transfer of wealth through the welfare state, the restrictions on free speech during elections, and so on.  And what about the New Puritans, most of whom are not practicing Christians, and their prohibitions on smoking, guns, drinking, pornography, T.V. violence, etc.?

If you want to run around and cry the sky is falling every time Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell utters some inanity, go ahead.  Meanwhile, I'll keep my eye on the ball.
You honestly believe this?  You also posited the Catholic Church as being a to-each-his-own branch of Christianity.  Are you honestly saying that the Catholic Church has made no attempt to insure that our laws are not a direct plagiarism of their 'infallible' interpretation of Biblical law?
Jody, you can invent bogeymen if you want, but what good does that do you?  Adam Reed has apparently lost his marbles thinking there's a Christian around every corner out to get him.  He even seems to think they've shortened his life somehow.  Is that the paranoid path you want to follow?  Do you honestly believe Christians are salivating for an opportunity to throw a sinner like you in prison?  Do you really know what the Catholic Church teaches?  Do you really know what most traditional Christians want?  (I won't account for liberal Christians for whom their religion takes a backseat to their socialist politics.)
Any belief system that relegates metaphysics to the fiat of a god and relegates epistemology to divine revelation is nothing but a philosophy that can lead to a correct logic(based upon the their own premises) that calls for the killing of the infidels.  The Marxist, the pomo's, and any religion is dangerous because they have thrown away objective reality and reason.  Once you do this, any irrational belief goes as long as the guru is convincing enough.
Yes, I see you've returned to your fallback position that a belief in God is what makes Christians evil.

What it comes down to, Jody, is this:  Objectivism was a big eye-opener for me.  It's a demanding philosophy that isn't kind to beliefs that aren't grounded firmly in reality.  I have had to discard a lot of nonsense in my thinking to meet its demands.  One of the benefits is that it has given me a healthy respect for using language objectively.  Words like evil actually mean something, something deadly serious.  So I don't toss it around lightly, because evil must be despised, rebuked, opposed, and defeated.  That's a lot of work.  Therefore, I don't go looking for enemies where they don't exist.

Andy




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, October 10 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Andy,
Science has shown us that the universe is a lot stranger than any of thought just one hundred years ago, so I don't think it's prudent to put the blinkers on when it comes to considering the ultimate nature of reality.
Science has shown us this. Not faith. That's the crucial difference in identifying bullshit. You can claim whatever you like, but at the end of the day scientific hypotheses and theories must be testable, either directly or indirectly. Understanding that we're still trying to fully grasp the workings of the universe doesn't require us to "be so open-minded our brains fall out."

Sarah



Post 14

Monday, October 10 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Understanding that we're still trying to fully grasp the workings of the universe doesn't require us to "be so open-minded our brains fall out."
Well said Sarah.

Andy-I'm beginning to think you are a believer in objectivist clothing.  I've asked this of others who try to defend God, so I'll ask it of you:  Do you believe in god?




Post 15

Monday, October 10 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You're confusing things.  The standard model of cosmology labeled the Big Bang did make testable predictions which were wrong in very important ways.  Inflation cosmology revised the standard model to correct its failures.  That part of the Big Bang theory that hypothesizes that the universe began as a singularity that went "bang" - hence, the Big Bang - remains untestable.  Now we have the brane hypothesis which overthrows the standard model completely and allows for a cyclical universe with no origin.
Andy- I was hoping it would be this easy.  Thanks for validating the legitimacy of testable hypothesis by realizing the necessity of such in argument.  But remind me again, what testable hypothesis does "God" profer?  After all, that IS what you are defending.





Post 16

Monday, October 10 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Yes, I see you've returned to your fallback position that a belief in God is what makes Christians evil.
No Andy, your prevalent sophistry fails you here.  It is the Christian denial of objective reality and of handing over epistemology to divine revelation that makes it an evil philosophy.  They could not believe in god if they did not first surrender their minds to these crimes.  I stated this earlier.  You can either acknowledge it or continue to try and contort the meaning of "christian" to fit some half-assed objectivism that still allows for wishful thinking.  Objective reality will never allow you to have your cake and eat it too.  Choose one or the other.




Post 17

Monday, October 10 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Therefore, I don't go looking for enemies where they don't exist.
 
Andy-You have a sharp mind, so I hope that you prove me wrong and that your "friend" does not stab you in the back.  As for me, I see this war for men's minds comprising several fronts, with metaphysics and epistemology being the major ones.  Regardless of what philosophy rushes in to fill the vacuum left by deserting ones mind to something other than reality(communism, socialism, chritianity, deism...etc.) it will never be a philosophy that allows man to live his life qua man.  It may seem so temporarily due to partial and accidental correspondence to reality, but it will fail in the end.  I do not judge a philosophy by it corresponding to reality via stochastic probability, but by it's corresponding to reality via its founding premise that reality is what it is, and that reason is our only means of knowing and understanding this reality. 
 
So why not throw up our hands and say "god stands at the threshold of our understanding, that settles it and I believe it"?  Because there is nothing in reality that points to this conclusion.  I stand by science, which says we CAN look further, we can know more, and we will never cease to achieve just because some mystic believes that the case is settled and that we should stop at this point.




Post 18

Tuesday, October 11 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jody,
Andy-You have a sharp mind, so I hope that you prove me wrong and that your "friend" does not stab you in the back.
Thank you for the compliment.  Now let's see if I can meet your request.

If my friend is a true Christian then I have no fear, for he would do no harm to me (except in self-defense) because that would be contrary to his beliefs.  If my friend is a Moslem, I may have problems, especially if he subscribes to the Medinan half of the Koran.  If he is an Objectivist like Dean and we're in New Orleans, I'll be running for my life because he believes Objectivist ethics permits him to murder me if his survival is at stake.

Of course, what Dean believes about Objectivist ethics is false.  The intrusions into our lives some Christians think their religion justifies is false.  On the other hand, what peaceful Moslems believe doesn't seem to square with the violence commanded by the Koran.  So it's difficult to say this guy is a friend and this one is not based upon the labels they wear.

Moreover, if we say that the beliefs that travel under a particular label are evil, I don't see how you get around not calling the person who properly wears that label evil.  It seems to be me an evasion, yet that's the common circumlocution here - e.g. Christianity is evil but most Christians are not.  But a belief cannot exist apart from the believer.  Just like an evil act cannot occur without an actor.  So if Christianity is an evil system of belief, then true Christians are evil for holding those beliefs.  In short, Jody, I think (without disparaging you personally) it is a bit gutless to call a belief evil and then not hold the believer accountable for it.

So, back to the beginning.  If my Christian friend must violate his beliefs to do evil to me, how are those beliefs evil?

Andy




Post 19

Tuesday, October 11 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean,
A theist cannot be rational, unless your talking about rationalism when you say "rational".
Of course, he can be rational.  Most people are rational most of the time.  We wouldn't have something called Western Civilization if that weren't true.  (More on this in my upcoming article on the virtue of benevolence.)

Andy




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password or create a free account.